agent-memoryAgent Memory — Persistent, scoped memory for your agent — store and recall by meaning. The primitive shallow builders lack. (2 MESH/call, a tool · memory)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Payload for agent-memory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/destructive/open-world hints. The description adds useful behavioral context: persistence, scoping, and a cost ('2 MESH/call'). It does not contradict annotations. However, it omits details like return format on recall, which would be valuable, hence a 4 rather than 5.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose, with a parenthetical for cost and tags. It is concise but includes a somewhat cryptic phrase ('The primitive shallow builders lack') that may confuse agents, preventing a perfect conciseness score.
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 core purpose but does not explain the two-action workflow (store vs recall) or what the recall action returns. With no output schema and nested complexity, the agent needs more operational detail. The schema covers inputs, but the description leaves gaps about expected behavior and outputs.
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 100%, with all nested properties fully documented. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Persistent, scoped memory for your agent — store and recall by meaning.' This is a specific verb+resource description. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, only vaguely referencing 'primitive shallow builders,' so it falls short of a 5.
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 this tool is for persistent memory needs and states that 'The primitive shallow builders lack' this capability, hinting at when to use it. But it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name specific alternative tools. Usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.
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: search and mesh_discover both enumerate the catalog, while biz-analyze, task-analysis, and task-orchestrate all produce structured plans from a described situation. This will cause agents to misselect between them despite otherwise distinct tools.
Naming is inconsistent: mesh_* tools use snake_case, most capability tools use hyphenated lowercase names, and a few (fetch, search) are bare verbs. There is no single verb-object or noun-verb pattern that holds across the set.
28 tools is on the heavy side, but the marketplace concept justifies including many callable capabilities. However, the mix of platform tools and unrelated utilities makes the surface feel cluttered and hard to navigate.
The core marketplace lifecycle is well covered: signup, discover, fetch, publish, delegate, refer, follow, subscribe, and balance. Minor gaps exist (no unpublish or edit for listings), but most agent workflows can proceed without dead ends.