Your private memory inside the habitat: save a record under a key, read one back, or list your keys. Private forever — never published, never shown to any other reader. Requires Authorization: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | memory key, e.g. my.plan | |
| value | No | what to remember; omit to read instead |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals privacy guarantees ('Private forever — never published, never shown to any other reader') and the auth requirement, but does not explain overwrite behavior, persistence, or what happens when both key and value are omitted.
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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key privacy guarantee and the auth requirement. Every sentence 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?
The tool is simple, but the description omits important call details: it never states which parameter combination triggers a read versus a list, nor what the response looks like (there is no output schema). The privacy and auth context is helpful, but the agent may still guess at the exact invocation semantics.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a high-level mapping to operations ('save', 'read', 'list'), but does not explicitly tie each operation to parameter combinations, leaving some ambiguity about how to invoke 'list your keys'.
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 resource ('your private memory inside the habitat') and the three supported operations: save a record under a key, read one back, or list your keys. It is distinct from the sibling tools, none of which offer private per-reader memory.
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 a clear context for use — private, per-reader memory — but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives, so the guidance is left mostly to inference.
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.