Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• memorix_codegraph_statusA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only operation ('Show'), but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or provide additional behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for a tool with no parameters.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description is adequate for a simple status tool, but it does not explain what 'provider and index status' entails or what the output looks like. Could be improved with more detail.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies a clear resource ('CodeGraph Memory provider and index status') scoped to 'the current project'. It clearly distinguishes the tool's single purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• memorix_context_packA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the output includes memories, facts, warnings, etc., but does not specify any side effects, permissions, or limitations. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not detailed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence plus a brief instruction, very concise with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key usage note.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a good overview of what the tool does. However, it lacks details on the exact output format, pagination, or error handling, leaving some gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds meaningful context for the 'purpose' parameter by explaining when to provide it, which goes beyond the schema description. This enhances understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it builds a context pack for a coding task, combining several elements. It also differentiates from the sibling 'memorix_project_context' by specifying when to provide the 'purpose' parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from all other siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies use for coding tasks and after a project context brief, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternatives to consider. Given the many sibling tools, more clarity would be beneficial.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• memorix_project_contextA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions 'Schedules Code Memory refresh when needed' which hints at a side effect, and lists included elements. However, it doesn't clarify whether the tool modifies anything persistent, whether it reads from disk, or what side effects scheduling refresh has. The output format is partially covered by the format parameter, but the description lacks depth on internal behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences: the first states the core purpose and contents, the second gives explicit usage timing. No filler, 100% relevant information, and front-loaded with purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main intended use and when to apply it. It lacks nuance about return values or potential edge cases, but given the format parameter and simple nature, it is quite complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'current coding task' but doesn't elaborate on the 'task' parameter semantics. It does not describe 'agent', 'limit', 'refresh', or 'format' beyond what is in the schema, so it neither enhances nor detracts.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: building a compact Memory Autopilot brief for the current coding task. It specifies actions (schedules refresh), content (Start here files, reliable memories, cautions), and differentiates from sibling tools like memorix_search or memorix_store by focusing on task-specific context briefs.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Use this at the start of a new coding turn or after switching tasks,' which provides clear context for when to invoke. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• memorix_resolveA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively explains key behavioral traits: that resolved memories are hidden from default search, can still be found with status='all', and the purpose is to prevent pollution of future context. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible, but provides substantial operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core action and effect, the second provides usage examples and rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the operation's purpose and effects. It explains the behavioral consequences (hidden from default search, findable with status='all') and practical use cases. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns or potential error conditions.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of marking observations as resolved and the effect on search, but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents (like explaining the difference between 'resolved' and 'archived' statuses).

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('mark as resolved') and resource ('observations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining what resolved memories are (hidden from default search but findable with status='all'). It provides concrete examples of use cases (completed tasks, fixed bugs, outdated information).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to mark completed tasks, fixed bugs, or outdated information) and explains the effect (so they don't pollute future context). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings, though it implies search tools might be alternatives for finding resolved items.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• memorix_mediaA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that assets remain outside the Git worktree, enter normal memory only when attach is explicitly true, and that generation is disabled by default pending billing review. This goes well beyond the schema, though it doesn't enumerate per-action side effects or authentication requirements.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is four focused sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: storage location, attach condition, CLI alternative, and generation gating. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the 11-parameter, 7-action tool with no output schema, the description provides essential policy context and the schema covers parameter details. It misses explicit per-action return behavior and authentication, but the combination of schema richness and behavioral warnings is adequate for most agent decision-making.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 91%, so the parameters are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds the important semantic that attach=true is the trigger for entering normal memory, but it doesn't otherwise explain parameter interactions or syntax.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb set ('import, attachment, inspection, or MiniMax generation') tied to the 'controlled local media library', and the title 'Manage Controlled Media' reinforces the resource. This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling memory/search tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It explicitly states when to use the MCP tool versus the CLI: use the CLI for destructive removal, quota cleanup, and direct generation. It also explains the conditional enablement of MCP generation (MEMORIX_MCP_MEDIA_GENERATION=1, operator billing review), providing clear when/when-not guidance.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• memorix_searchA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations provided, but description discloses return format (compact index, token size), search scope (cross-session/cross-agent), and it implies read-only behavior. Lacks explicit safety or permission info, but acceptable for a search tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences plus guidance on usage; front-loads purpose, then usage and alternatives. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, and return characteristics well. Minor gaps: no explanation of purpose field usage or behavior when omitted, but overall complete for a search tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 12 parameters. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, only gives context on return format. Baseline 3 appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states 'Search project memory' with verb and resource, mentions return format as compact index (~50-100 tokens/result), and distinguishes from siblings (memorix_detail, memorix_timeline).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly warns against using as follow-up to a complete brief unless a specific fact is missing, provides purpose requirement, and names alternatives (memorix_detail for full content, memorix_timeline for chronology).

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• memorix_storeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses auto-indexing, type classification prefixes, default visibility, visibility requirements (personal/team require joined coordination identity), longTerm not injected until operator review, and the read-only guard. This adds significant context beyond the schema.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose. The type list is long but valuable. No fluff; every sentence adds functional information. Slightly long due to the type enumeration, but well-structured for the complexity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a complex tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential operational context (type, visibility, longTerm, read-only) while the schema descriptions cover remaining parameters. It does not mention upsert behavior of topicKey or attachment constraints, but these are in schema. Overall, sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema for key parameters: explains the type enum with bracketed prefixes and meanings (e.g., gotcha = critical pitfall), clarifies visibility defaults and requirements, and details longTerm semantics. This meaningfully enriches the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Store a new observation/memory. Automatically indexed for search.' This gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool memorix_store_reasoning, which may be a related but distinct store operation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'For a read-only task, do not store unless the user explicitly asks to save a record.' Also gives conditions for longTerm: 'Set longTerm only when the caller explicitly wants an additional source-backed long-term candidate.' This is strong usage guidance.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• memorix_detailA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (source kind, value category, cross-references, ~500-1000 tokens each) and warns against redundant fetching. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but for a read-only detail-fetch tool this is adequate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Fetch full observation...'). Each sentence adds distinct value—scope, usage rules, and accepted input formats—without obvious redundancy. It is slightly longer than minimal, but the additional guidance earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given there is no output schema, the description fills the gap by explaining the contents of the return (source kind, value category, cross-references) and the expected token range. It also covers the full input-ref landscape and usage context, making the tool comprehensible without needing further documentation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  All five parameters already have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds meaningful usage context beyond the schema. It explains typedRefs (obs:42, skill:3, durable:<uuid>) versus legacy numeric ids/object refs, and clarifies when the purpose and force fields should be used. This helps the agent select the correct parameter for each situation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with 'Fetch full observation, mini-skill, or curated durable-memory details,' which clearly states the verb and targeted resources. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing memorix_search for finding IDs and memorix_project_context for briefs, making it clear this tool provides the detailed record itself.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicit guidance is provided: 'Always use memorix_search first to find relevant IDs, then fetch only what you need' and 'Do not re-fetch content already covered by a complete memorix_project_context brief unless a specific fact is still missing or the user asks for deeper history.' These quoted rules give direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, along with the expectation to provide a purpose when intentionally expanding.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• memorix_session_startA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Discloses key behaviors: auto-closes previous active sessions, is lightweight (no history dump), and coordination identity is opt-in. No annotations provided, so description covers behavioral traits fully.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Clear and front-loaded with key information, but contains some redundancy (e.g., coordination identity mentioned twice). Could be slightly more concise.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Covers return value, side effects (auto-close), important HTTP mode notes, and default behavior. Adequate for a tool with no output schema and 7 parameters.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has 100% coverage, baseline 3. Description adds context beyond schema, e.g., `projectRoot` is critical for HTTP mode and `role` is only used when `joinTeam=true`. However, not all parameters are elaborated.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly states it starts a new coding session, returns a compact continuation card, and tracks activity. It distinguishes from siblings like memorix_session_end and memorix_session_context by its unique role as the session starter.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides clear when-to-use instruction ('at the beginning of a session'), important HTTP mode requirements, and mentions alternatives like `joinTeam: true` or `team_manage` for coordination identity.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.