Scored across 30 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Although there are many memory/note tools, descriptions clearly separate them (e.g., memory_edit for in-place search/replace vs memory_write for full-body updates, memory_append for adding to existing), and gardener tools are well-differentiated (request creates proposals, proposals lists, apply resolves, split handles project splits). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The vast majority follow a resource_action pattern (tasks_add, notes_read, memory_write, project_list, session_start). A few deviations exist: usage_summary (noun-noun), capture_url (verb-noun), favorite_set (noun-verb), and recall (bare verb). The overall pattern is still predictable and readable, so the minor inconsistencies do not cause confusion.
With 30 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The broad domain (memories, notes, tasks, projects, sessions, gardener, etc.) justifies many of them, but some could be consolidated—e.g., memory_edit vs memory_write, notes_edit vs notes_update—which would reduce surface area. The count is not extreme enough for a 2, but it exceeds the comfortable 3-15 range.
The tool surface provides full CRUD and lifecycle coverage for all core entities: memories (write, read, append, edit, delete), notes (create, read, update, append, edit, delete), tasks (add, list, claim, release, update, ready), projects (create, list), and sessions (start, update, end). Additional features like recall, capture_url, favorite_set, gardener, and usage_summary fill out the system with no obvious dead ends.