get_platform_capabilitiesMachine-queryable manifest of all available MemoryCrux tools, required trust tiers, and credit costs. Returns structured data for agent-to-service evaluation without reading documentation. Free (0 credits) at all tiers — discovery drives adoption.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | ||
| min_trust_tier | No | ||
| max_credit_cost | No |
| 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 that the tool returns structured data, is free at all tiers, and serves discovery purposes. It implies a read-only, safe operation but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or what happens if filters are applied. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it returns, why it's useful, and its cost. No redundant or tangential information is present, making it highly 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?
The tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the main purpose, the type of data returned, and cost. It does not explain parameter usage, which is a minor gap, but given the output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple discovery 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the three optional parameters (category, min_trust_tier, max_credit_cost). It mentions 'trust tiers' and 'credit costs' as content of the manifest, but it does not clarify that these parameters likely act as filters or how they should be formatted. The parameter meanings are left to the agent's inference from names, which is insufficient.
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 what the tool does: 'Machine-queryable manifest of all available MemoryCrux tools, required trust tiers, and credit costs.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies a unique resource (platform capabilities), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific data rather than the full tool manifest.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Returns structured data for agent-to-service evaluation without reading documentation.' It also notes it is 'Free (0 credits) at all tiers' implying safe use for discovery. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.