check_constraintsCheck an action against all active constraints. Returns matched constraints, match types (structural/semantic), and a combined verdict (pass/warn/block).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| target_resources | No | ||
| action_description | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the evaluation behavior and output structure (matched constraints, match types, verdict). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only status or side effects, the verb 'check' and the return of a verdict strongly imply a non-mutating evaluation, which is reasonably transparent given no annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and followed by a concise summary of outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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?
The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema. The description gives a clear high-level picture but omits parameter semantics, which are poorly covered since schema descriptions are absent. The existing output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the parameter ambiguity leaves completeness just adequate.
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 0%, meaning no parameter documentation exists in the schema. The description only hints that 'action_description' is the action to check, but it leaves team_id, metadata, and target_resources unexplained. This is a significant gap that the description fails to compensate for.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('an action against all active constraints'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_constraints by detailing the output (matched constraints, match types, combined verdict), making its unique function evident.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you need to check an action against constraints) and gives context on what it returns. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.