engrava-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_memory

Read-only

Browse stored thoughts by structured filters—type, lifecycle status, priority, and cycle range—with pagination. Use it to enumerate memory by fields; use search for ranked query matches.

Instructions

List stored thoughts with optional filters and pagination. Unlike search_memory this does no relevance ranking and returns no scores: it is a plain browse over memory, ordered by highest cognitive cycle first; thoughts written through this server all carry cycle 0, so their relative order is unspecified and does not represent recency. Filter by thought type, lifecycle status, priority, and an updated-cycle range; page through results with limit and offset. Use this to enumerate memory by structured fields; use search_memory when you want the best matches for a query.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`priority`	No
`max_cycle`	No
`min_cycle`	No
`thought_type`	No
`include_expired`	No
`lifecycle_status`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the `readOnlyHint` annotation, the description provides critical behavioral details, including the sorting logic (ordered by highest cognitive cycle first), the server constraint (thoughts written through this server are cycle 0), and detailed pagination mechanics.

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?

The definition is dense and highly informative, using every sentence to convey a specific, useful piece of operational or comparative information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple filter types, specific ordering rules, and use-case alternatives), the description is highly comprehensive and requires no further elaboration for a sophisticated agent.

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?

Despite having 0% schema description coverage, the text explicitly lists all the filtering capabilities ('Filter by thought type, lifecycle status, priority, and an updated-cycle range'), giving conceptual meaning to the abstract parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists stored thoughts and immediately clarifies its scope: it performs a 'plain browse' without relevance ranking, distinguishing it sharply from `search_memory`.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: use this to 'enumerate memory by structured fields' (like status or priority), and use `search_memory` when a relevance-based query is needed.

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

Deploy Server