erinys_session_startStarts a new memory session for an AI agent or project, letting you initialize a session with an ID, project, and optional directory before storing or recalling context.
Start a new session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| directory | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what a session is, whether starting one is persistent or scoped, what happens if a session already exists, or what side effects occur. Only the bare notion of a state-creating action is conveyed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise—there is nothing for the agent to act on beyond the tool name.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and two required parameters, the definition leaves the agent without enough context to call this correctly—especially the meaning of id and project.
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 0% across three parameters: id, project, and directory have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not explain what id identifies, whether project must match an existing project, or what directory controls.
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 verb+resource pair ("Start" + "session") is identifiable, but "session" is never defined in a system with 28 siblings, and the description does nothing to distinguish this from erinys_session_end or erinys_session_summary. An agent must infer what a session represents here.
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?
There is no guidance on when to start a session versus using erinys_session_end or other lifecycle tools, no prerequisites, and no note on whether a session must be started before erinys_save/erinys_recall calls. Usage is entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.