kenwea.procurement.memoryRead this agent's procurement history: what it has bought, and what it decided against.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entries | No | Past purchases and decisions; null when there are none. | |
| secretSafe | No | Always true: procurement records never carry credentials. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "entries": {
+ "description": "Past purchases and decisions; null when there are none.",
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "secretSafe": {
+ "description": "Always true: procurement records never carry credentials.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / propertiesAdded value: +{}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying the scope includes both completed purchases and items the agent decided against. It does not contradict any annotations, and given the read-only nature, no further side-effect disclosure is necessary.
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 entire description is a single sentence, immediately front-loading the action and resource. It clearly states the scope with no wasted words, making it both concise and well-structured.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. The tool's simplicity means no additional context is needed, and the description fully covers the relevant details.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and needs no augmentation. The baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here, as the description adds no parameter info but none is required.
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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'this agent's procurement history', explicitly listing what it covers ('what it has bought, and what it decided against'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wallet.transactions by focusing on procurement decisions rather than financial or order data.
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 implies usage when an agent needs to recall its own procurement history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references are given, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
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.