List projects, Git repositories, and workspaces that amem monitors, with an optional kind filter, so you can see which resources are known across sessions.
List what amem is monitoring. Each item has kind git or workspace. Workspaces also have a stable slug (MCP id); the display name can differ. Use when asked which projects, workspaces, or repos amem knows about.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | all (default), git, or workspace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavior, and it does disclose useful details beyond the signature: items carry a kind, and workspaces have a stable slug (MCP id) that can differ from the display name — a genuine gotcha that prevents lookup errors. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, result size, or pagination, so a 4 rather than 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences: purpose first, then item structure, then the usage trigger. Every sentence supplies information an agent needs (taxonomy, the slug/display-name caveat, routing cue) with no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description has to sketch the return shape, and it does name kind and the workspace slug/display-name distinction. It does not enumerate the full item fields or say whether results are paginated or ordered, which leaves a small gap for a no-annotation tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'kind' parameter already documents all/git/workspace, so the baseline is 3. The description references the git/workspace taxonomy but adds no filtering semantics — e.g. whether 'all' is the default or how slug matching works — beyond what the schema states.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List what amem is monitoring') and then defines the item taxonomy (kind git or workspace), which no sibling tool offers. The final clause scopes it to projects/workspaces/repos, so an agent can separate it from amem_status or amem_stats without inspecting another schema.
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?
'Use when asked which projects, workspaces, or repos amem knows about' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not name a when-not case or an explicit alternative (e.g. amem_status for health vs this for inventory), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.