fill_gapFill a previously reported gap with new knowledge. Gap must have been reported by a different tenant for cross-tenant credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| gap_receipt_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a cross-tenant credit constraint, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or validation behavior. It is not misleading, but it is insufficiently transparent for a mutation tool.
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 and front-loaded with the action. Both sentences earn their place: one states the purpose, the other a key condition. There is no wasted wording.
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 three required parameters, one of which is a nested evidence array, yet the description gives no guidance on how to construct a valid request (e.g., how to obtain a gap_receipt_id, what source types are valid). The output schema covers return values, but the description leaves operational details unexplained, making it incomplete for reliable use.
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%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'gap' (mapping to gap_receipt_id) and 'new knowledge' (mapping to content), but does not explicitly explain any of the three parameters, especially 'evidence' which has a nested structure. The meaning of each parameter remains unclear.
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 ('fill') and resource ('previously reported gap') to state exactly what the tool does. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge_gaps' by implying an action that modifies state, and the cross-tenant credit rule adds a unique constraint.
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 indicates the tool is for filling gaps that were previously reported, and the tenant requirement provides a specific context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it lacks full explicit usage guidance.
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.