continental_buy_memoryAdds 25 MB of Study quota per block for 30 days, 250 Markers each. Members only. Errors: insufficient_markers (needed, balance).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blocks | No | Default 1 | |
| api_key | No | Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present.",
+ "pattern": "^tc_(live|visit)_[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the cost (250 Markers), the effect (adds quota for 30 days), eligibility (Members only), and a specific error (insufficient_markers). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two concise sentences with zero filler. The core action, cost, duration, eligibility, and error are front-loaded in a structured way. Every piece of information earns its place.
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?
For a simple purchase tool with optional params and no output schema, the description covers the effect, cost, duration, eligibility, and a possible error. It does not mention stacking behavior or other errors, but the schema already caps blocks at 40. Given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.
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% for both parameters (blocks and api_key), so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'per block' and '250 Markers each', which indirectly relates to the blocks parameter, but does not add any semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., default, range, pattern). No additional parameter detail is provided.
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 states a specific verb ('Adds') with a concrete resource ('25 MB of Study quota per block') and a cost ('250 Markers each'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like continental_markers (viewing markers) and continental_memories (memory-related) by specifying a purchase action.
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 it (when you need more Study quota) and restricts to members ('Members only'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like continental_funding_request or mention when not to use it. No exclusionary guidance is provided.
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.