Recomputes embeddings for all stored memories to restore semantic retrieval accuracy. Use after memory changes; subject to a 300-second cooldown.
Recompute embeddings for all memories. Rate limited: 300s cooldown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit cooldown, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not mention resource usage, potential impacts on existing data, or whether the operation is long-running.
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 fluff. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds an important behavioral constraint. Every word 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks information about the output or return value, and could benefit from explaining typical use cases (e.g., after data updates). Despite this, it covers the essential behavioral aspect of rate limiting.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not introduce any confusion.
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 purpose: 'Recompute embeddings for all memories.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_create or memory_rebuild_crossrefs by specifying a unique operation.
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 mentions a rate limit (300s cooldown) which signals that this tool is not for frequent use, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.