Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
xmszm-memory

xmszm-memory

by xmszm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

list

Browse active memories by URI. Use an optional prefix filter to narrow results and discover exact URIs for further operations.

Instructions

Browse active memories by URI. Optional prefix filters by URI prefix. Use search for keyword discovery; use read/update/delete only after you have the exact URI.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "namespace": "<namespace>"
    },
    "name": "list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prefixNoOptional URI prefix filter
namespaceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context that it lists 'active' memories and supports prefix filtering, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or the meaning of 'active.' It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides essential guidance without waste. It is concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the typical use case and differentiates from siblings. It lacks return format details, but this is not critical for a browsing tool and the description is otherwise complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% with only the prefix parameter having a description. The description clarifies 'Optional prefix filters by URI prefix,' adding meaning to that parameter. However, 'namespace' remains undocumented in both schema and description, leaving ambiguity.

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's purpose: 'Browse active memories by URI.' It uses a specific verb with a resource and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning keyword search and exact-URI operations.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use search for keyword discovery; use read/update/delete only after you have the exact URI.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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