memory_playbooks_listAlias for memory_procedures_list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by tag | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| include_body | No | Include full steps_md |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Alias for memory_procedures_list' and discloses no behavior beyond that indirect reference: no read-only implications, pagination behavior, filtering behavior, or output expectations are stated. The word 'list' implies read-only weakly, but the description itself does not explain what happens when called.
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?
The description is extremely short and contains no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, it is so terse that it becomes under-specification rather than genuine conciseness: one short alias statement carries almost no explanatory value.
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 four-parameter list tool with no annotations, an output schema, and many memory-related siblings, this description is not enough. It does not explain the tool's relationship to playbooks versus procedures, does not state what the response will contain, and leaves the agent to resolve the alias before it can safely decide whether to call this 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 only 50%, with tag and include_body documented but limit and offset left undocumented in the schema. The description adds nothing about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the gap in the structured schema definitions.
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 identifies the tool only as an alias for memory_procedures_list, which lets an agent infer it performs the same listing operation. However, it never states the operation itself and relies on the reader knowing what memory_procedures_list does; this is more than a tautology but still indirect and vague.
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 description notes an equivalence to memory_procedures_list but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_playbook_get, memory_playbook_set, memory_procedure_get, or memory_procedure_set. It provides no exclusions, conditions, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).
The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.