Read facts back from your ODEI-hosted operator memory. Simple substring + recency match (v1) — no semantic search yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max facts to return (default 10, cap 50). | |
| query | No | Optional substring filter over fact text and kind. | |
| session_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description attempts to disclose behavior: it's a read operation using substring and recency matching, and notes it's v1 with no semantic search. However, it omits safety profile, rate limits, or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds 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 simple read tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and algorithm. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or authentication needs (session token not explained). Adequate but could be more thorough.
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 coverage is 67% with two parameters described. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The query description is indirectly explained by the overall algorithm, but the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool reads facts from ODEI-hosted operator memory, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like wm_remember by mentioning the matching mechanism (substring + recency) and explicitly noting it's a read operation.
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 hints at limitations (v1, no semantic search) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like wm_remember or when to use semantic search. No direct mention of when-not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: handshake, plan, report step, status, talk for the ceremony; recall and remember for memory. No overlap between tools or groups.
Tools use snake_case, but prefixes are inconsistent: five use 'odei_connect_' and two use 'wm_'. While each group is internally consistent, the mix across a single server named 'connect' is confusing.
7 tools is a reasonable count, not too few or many. However, the server covers two distinct domains (ceremony and memory), which might be better separated.
The connect ceremony tools cover handshake, plan, report, status, talk—seemingly complete for a session lifecycle. The memory tools only provide read and write, missing update and delete, which are notable gaps for a memory store.
