ToolForte

List remembered keys

memory_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the keys you have stored, newest first, optionally filtered by prefix. Use this to discover what a previous session left behind before deciding what to read. Returns keys and sizes, not values. Requires a free API key (Authorization: Bearer tf_...) so entries stay private to you: https://toolforte.com/developers

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of keys to return, 1 to 200 (default 200)
`prefix`	No	Only list keys starting with this prefix

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keys`	No
`count`	No	Number of items
`result`	No	The result, when it is not an object

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of keys to return, 1 to 200 (default 200)"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "keys": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: sort order, filtered listing, returns keys and sizes rather than values, and the API-key requirement with a link. This goes beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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 compact and front-loaded: action and core behavior first, then usage guidance, then return contents, then auth. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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?

For a simple list tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers all essential context: what the tool returns, how to use it, auth requirements, and how it fits into the workflow. Nothing important is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds only a small semantic nuance by mentioning 'optionally filtered by prefix' and the ordering, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), the exact resource ('keys you have stored'), an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), and an optional filter ('prefix'). The phrase 'not values' further distinguishes it from memory_get, and the title aligns with the description.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'discover what a previous session left behind before deciding what to read.' It implies the alternative (use memory_get for reading values) by stating this returns keys and sizes, not values, though it does not name the sibling directly.

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

All ToolForte tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action, so an agent can usually tell them apart. A few close pairs exist (generate_test_bsn vs generate_brp_test_data, html_to_pdf vs url_to_pdf, read_page vs url_screenshot), but the descriptions draw clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like generate_slug, validate_email, or pdf_merge. There are a few noun-style exceptions such as base64, csv_to_json, and password_strength, but no mixed casing or chaotic naming.

Tool Count3/5

40 tools is heavy and exceeds the comfortable selection range for most agents. The server presents itself as a general-purpose utility toolbox, so the breadth is defensible, but the large flat tool list creates real navigation burden.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers common encoding, conversion, image/PDF, validation, Dutch-specific test data, memory, and workflow needs quite well. Minor gaps like PDF text extraction or JSON-to-CSV conversion exist, but agents can typically work around them.

Resources

Need Help?