Lists stored memories and optionally filters them by namespace or pool scope, so you can review or select relevant memory entries for a task.
List all stored memories, optionally filtered by namespace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No | Filter by namespace | |
| pool_name | No | Pool scope (optional, global if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little: nothing about read-only safety, result limits, ordering, pagination, or what happens when the memory store is empty. It also ignores the pool_name scope parameter entirely, which matters because omitting it silently means 'global'.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the under-specification problem rather than disciplined compression.
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?
For a simple optional-parameter read tool this covers the basics, but with no output schema and no annotations an agent still lacks the return shape (memory fields, ordering, size limits) and the pool scoping behavior. Adequate, with clear gaps.
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%, so both parameters are already documented and a baseline of 3 is warranted. The description restates namespace filtering but adds nothing about pool_name semantics ('global if omitted'), so it does not enrich the schema.
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: 'List all stored memories', with the scope qualifier 'optionally filtered by namespace'. It is clearly an enumeration tool, which implicitly contrasts with trawl_memory_search, but it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.
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 phrase 'optionally filtered by namespace' implies the main usage context, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over trawl_memory_search (which presumably queries by content) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.