get_freshness_reportCheck how recent the stored knowledge is across topics. Returns staleness indicators per topic. Use this when answering time-sensitive questions to verify your evidence isn't outdated. Topics with stale data may have been superseded by newer conversations not yet retrieved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| stale_after_days | 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that topics with stale data may have been superseded by newer conversations, adding interpretive context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how limit/stale_after_days affect results, or any other behavioral traits, so it's adequate but not rich.
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?
Three sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence contributes essential information: what it does, how to use it, and an interpretive caveat. Extremely efficient.
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 description covers purpose, usage, and a key interpretation point. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks parameter guidance and does not address the overlap with sibling tools like 'memory_freshness_report', leaving some contextual gaps for a complete picture.
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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does not mention 'limit' or 'stale_after_days' at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but without any explanation of how they affect the report, the description fails to bridge the gap left by the 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 clearly states the tool checks how recent stored knowledge is across topics and returns staleness indicators per topic. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('stored knowledge'), but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'memory_freshness_report', which likely serves a similar purpose.
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?
Explicitly says to use this tool when answering time-sensitive questions to verify evidence isn't outdated. This provides a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it stops short of a full 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.