submit_correctionSubmit a correction for a knowledge item with evidence chain. The original item is never mutated — a versioned enrichment layer is created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| evidence | Yes | ||
| correction_type | Yes | ||
| original_item_id | Yes | ||
| corrected_content | Yes | ||
| parent_receipt_id | 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 explicitly discloses that the original item is never mutated and a versioned enrichment layer is created, which is a key behavioral guarantee. However, it does not cover failure modes, permissions, or response format, though an output schema exists.
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 action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains the critical non-mutation behavior.
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 the main purpose and the key non-mutation behavior, but it lacks details about parameters, usage scenarios, and the meaning of fields like parent_receipt_id. Given the moderate complexity of the tool and the existence of an output schema, it is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 any parameters, including the purpose of parent_receipt_id or the structure of the evidence chain. Parameter names like original_item_id and corrected_content are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.
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 specific action ('Submit a correction') and the resource ('knowledge item with evidence chain'). The non-mutating behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_correction_chain or compare_versions, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to submit a correction with evidence. It provides context about the versioned enrichment layer, which helps an agent understand the non-destructive nature without explicitly naming alternatives. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives.
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.