Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Body-MCP

Body-MCP

by sspublisher2005-gif
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memory_list

Lists stored memories newest first, optionally filtered by scope or project, so coding agents can review prior context.

Instructions

List stored memories, newest first, optionally filtered by scope/project.

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": "memory_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
scopeNo
projectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses newest-first ordering and optional filtering, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, permissions, or what 'stored memories' include.

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 entire definition is one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes useful information about the action, ordering, and filtering.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It should explain the limit default, pagination behavior, and the meaning of empty scope/project defaults.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions scope and project filtering but does not define acceptable values, defaults, or interactions, and it omits the limit parameter entirely.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List stored memories') and adds useful scope ('newest first'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as memory_search, but the list-vs-search distinction is reasonably implied.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_search or other memory siblings. It only states the obvious optional filtering behavior, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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