Key/value memory store for agent state.
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": {
"key": "<key>"
},
"name": "memory"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Key to set or get | |
| value | No | Value to store (omit to read) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Key to set or get",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / valueAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Value to store (omit to read)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "key"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies storage. It does not explain read versus write behavior, whether writes overwrite existing values, persistence or scope, or what happens when a key is absent.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. Its brevity is efficient, although it leaves out operational details that would make the definition more useful.
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 dual-mode read/write tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. The schema covers basic invocation, but persistence, overwrite and missing-key behavior, and selection among the memory-related siblings remain unexplained.
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%, including the crucial 'omit to read' convention for value, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the structured 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?
The description identifies a key/value store for agent state, adding some meaning beyond the bare name. However, it does not explicitly state the supported get/set operations or distinguish this tool from agent_memory, memory_list, and memory_search.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when a sibling such as agent_memory or memory_search would be preferable. The schema implies that omitting value performs a read, but the description itself provides no usage context or exclusions.
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.