Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vault-memory

vault-memory

by owrede
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_vaults

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists configured vaults with note counts and last indexed run status; deprecated since v2.0.0 in favor of the vault-memory://vaults resource.

Instructions

List configured vaults with their status (note count, last indexed run). DEPRECATED since v2.0.0 — prefer MCP Resource vault-memory://vaults for agent discovery. The tool remains callable through v2.x; removal scheduled for v3.0.0.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_vaults"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0-rc.5

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds the deprecation lifecycle and migration path, which is genuinely useful non-schema context. It stops short of describing pagination or exact status shape, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste; the concrete capability is front-loaded and the deprecation notice follows. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an empty schema and no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields, the safety-relevant status, and the deprecation replacement. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond noting there are no inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (configured vaults) and enumerates the returned status fields (note count, last indexed run). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like vault_stats or index_runs without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it – prefer the MCP Resource `vault-memory://vaults` for agent discovery – and gives the lifecycle window (callable through v2.x, removed in v3.0.0). This is precise when/when-not/alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools