sync_pullPull enriched facts from a remote memory instance into the local fact store. Uses cursor-based pagination and resumes from the last pull cursor. Pulled facts carry a sync:source_receipt so they are never pushed back. Requires an agent passport with at least basic tier (10+ receipts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_prefix | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: cursor-based pagination, resuming from last pull cursor, sync:source_receipt preventing push-back, and passport tier requirement. These are valuable side-effect and safety details, though it could mention initial pull behavior or conflict handling.
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 dense sentences, each contributing new information: purpose, pagination/resume behavior, receipt side-effect, and auth requirement. No filler or redundancy.
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 only one optional parameter, but its meaning is entirely absent from both schema and description, creating a usability gap. The description covers purpose, pagination, side effects, and auth, which is good, but without entity_prefix semantics the tool cannot be correctly invoked in all cases. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation.
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 'entity_prefix' parameter at all. With only a string and minLength in the schema, the agent has no idea what this parameter filters or when to use it, making it impossible to know what values are appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Pull enriched facts from a remote memory instance into the local fact store.' This clearly distinguishes it from sync_push and other sibling tools by indicating direction and content.
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 the tool (for pulling remote facts into local store) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It provides context like cursor-based pagination and auth requirements, but no direct 'use sync_push for the opposite direction' 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.