Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• engram_statusA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses read-only nature, no parameters, and details return fields: memory counts, embedding-model status, database location, key config. Highly transparent.

  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?

  Description is concise with front-loaded purpose, then detailed listing of returns, ending with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Complete for a health-check tool.

  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?

  No parameters; baseline is 4. Description adds value by confirming parameter-free and documenting what information is returned, which is more than just the schema.

  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 reports Engram health and statistics, is read-only and parameter-free. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a diagnostics/health check, not performing memory operations like recall or remember.

  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 as a diagnostics/health check — to confirm the model is loaded and see how many memories exist — before relying on recall.' Provides clear when-to-use context and implies engram_recall as alternative, but could more explicitly list when not to use.

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

• engram_contextA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses key behaviors: semantic search with query, frequency/recency fallback, formatting options, token truncation, single string return. No annotations provided, but description covers all essential behavioral traits.

  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?

  Description is well-structured and concise: starts with main purpose, explains query/no-query, output format, sibling comparison, and usage guidance. No redundant sentences.

  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?

  Covers main functionality, usage guidelines, and parameter interplay. Lacks mention of error handling (e.g., no memories found), but given the tool's purpose and seven parameters, it is largely complete.

  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%, but the description adds context on how parameters (e.g., limit, max_tokens, format) interact to produce the final block. Provides integration-level meaning beyond individual schema descriptions.

  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 it builds a pre-formatted context block from memories, distinguishes from engram_recall by noting formatted string vs raw objects. Also describes behavior with and without query.

  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 advises when to use this tool vs engram_recall: 'Use when you want drop-in context text; use engram_recall when you need structured results to reason over.' Also implies usage at session start.

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

• engram_recallA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description fully bears the burden. It details the scoring formula, fallback to FTS, side effects (bumps timestamps), and return structure. No contradictions.

  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?

  Long but well-organized: purpose, scoring details, fallback, side effects, return format, usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value; minor trimming possible but still effective.

  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?

  No output schema, but description fully explains return array structure (fields like id, content, score). Covers input, process, output, side effects, fallback. Complete for a complex tool.

  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 baseline is 3. Description adds extra context for query (be specific), limit (keep low), and time_filter (supports relative times), going beyond schema docs.

  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 retrieves memories relevant to a query, ranked by a hybrid score, and distinguishes from sibling engram_context by contrasting raw results vs. ready-to-inject block.

  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 states when to use ('at session start or to look up a specific fact') and when to prefer an alternative ('prefer engram_context when you want a ready-to-inject block').

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

• engram_rememberA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: secret scanning/redaction, auto-extraction of category and entity, local embedding generation, deduplication logic (three outcomes with cosine thresholds), and force flag behavior. This is comprehensive.

  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 relatively long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the main purpose and includes detailed side effects. Could be slightly more concise but remains efficient.

  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?

  Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is very complete: explains return type (memory id + outcome), deduplication behavior, secret scanning, and parameter details. No gaps in context.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: deduplication thresholds (0.92-0.95, ≥0.95), 'use sparingly' for force, examples for content, and explanation for category enum values. This justifies a 4.

  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 it stores durable memories (facts, preferences, patterns, decisions, outcomes) persisting across sessions, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools engram_recall (retrieval) and engram_forget (deletion). The verb 'store' and resource 'memory' are specific.

  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: 'Use when you learn something worth remembering about the user, project, setup, or workflow; recall with engram_recall, delete with engram_forget.' Also mentions auto-extraction and deduplication, providing context for when to use versus alternatives.

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

• engram_feedbackA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description fully carries burden. It details the feedback_score range, weight on recall score, confidence auto-adjustment after 5+ votes, and return value.

  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?

  Single paragraph but well-structured: purpose first, then effects, then usage guidance. Dense with information, no superfluous words.

  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?

  For a 3-param tool with no output schema, the description fully explains effects, return value, and integration with workflow (recall->feedback). Complete enough for accurate use.

  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%, baseline 3. Description adds context: explains that 'helpful' raises/lowers score and that memory_id comes from engram_recall. Provides value beyond schema.

  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 records a helpful/unhelpful vote on a recalled memory to tune future ranking. It distinguishes from sibling tools like engram_forget, which removes memories.

  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?

  The description explicitly instructs when to call it ('right after acting on a memory from engram_recall') and provides an alternative (engram_forget) for removal.

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

• engram_forgetA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden: declares irreversibility, removal of feedback rows, return type (boolean), and error handling (reports not-found without error).

  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?

  Three concise sentences; front-loaded with action and key constraint ('Permanently delete'); every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

  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?

  For a single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what action, side effects, return behavior, and error handling.

  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 already provides 100% coverage with description for memory_id. Description adds value by specifying the source ('as returned by engram_recall or engram_remember').

  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 specific verb-resource pairing ('Permanently delete one memory by id'), distinguishes from siblings like engram_feedback and engram_recall, and clearly states the return value.

  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 states when to use ('when a memory is wrong, outdated, or the user asks you to forget it') and when to use an alternative ('If you're unsure, downvote with engram_feedback instead').

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