get_contradictionsFind conflicting information across the user's memory. Returns groups of artefacts that contradict each other on the same topic. Use after gathering evidence for an answer — if your evidence sources disagree, this reveals which version is correct (typically the most recent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool resolves conflicts by favoring the most recent version and returns groups of artefacts. While it doesn't mention side effects, this is a read operation and the behavior is adequately described.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place, providing purpose, behavior, and usage guidance without fluff.
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 is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the purpose, timing, and the 'most recent wins' heuristic, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 schema contains a single 'limit' parameter with no description, and the description does not mention it. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated, but it leaves the parameter semantics entirely to the name and min/max constraints.
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 function with specific verbs ('find', 'returns') and resource ('conflicting information across the user's memory'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on contradictions and grouping them by topic.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use after gathering evidence for an answer' and explains the scenario when evidence sources disagree. However, it does not name alternatives or mention when not to use, so there is clear context but no 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.
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.