List all core-memory entries ordered by priority, then key, for reviewing shared agent knowledge; enable cross-project to include other projects.
List all core-memory entries, ordered by priority DESC then key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cross_project | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Input schema / properties / cross_projectAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Cross Project",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.13.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail about ordering, but does not clarify the effect of cross_project or the tool's full scope. It does not contradict the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds ordering efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. However, the sole optional parameter cross_project is not described anywhere, leaving a clear gap for an agent deciding whether to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one optional parameter, cross_project, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema. This leaves the parameter's effect completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: listing core-memory entries. It also gives the ordering, but does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like core_get, core_set, or core_remove. Still, an agent can infer the list-vs-single-entry distinction from the wording.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope, or when to prefer core_get or other memory tools. Usage is only implied by the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.