Create named memory entities with types and observations in the shared SQLite store, so MCP clients can record structured long-term memory for later search and retrieval.
Compatibility tool backed by the same v2 SQLite store. New callers should prefer versioned native memory tools. Legacy deletion is logical and retained in history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entities | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent write that is not destructive; the description adds useful context that the tool is legacy/compatibility and writes to the same v2 SQLite store, which tells an agent its data is not isolated. The sentence about logical, history-retained deletion is off-topic for a create tool and muddies rather than clarifies creation semantics (e.g. duplicate handling).
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?
Three short sentences with no padding, but they are front-loaded on deprecation status rather than the operation, and the deletion sentence does not earn its place in a create tool's description.
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?
For a write tool with a nested, undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what gets persisted and what happens on name collisions. It omits both, and its mention of deletion history is irrelevant to this operation.
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% and the single `entities` parameter is a nested array of objects with required name/entityType/observations. The description says nothing about these fields, their meaning, the 100-item caps, or whether observations are appended or replaced, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 never states what the tool does. It talks about being a 'compatibility tool backed by the same v2 SQLite store' and about legacy deletion, but never says it creates entities, observations, or anything at all. An agent must infer the operation from the name alone.
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?
'New callers should prefer versioned native memory tools' is a genuine when-not-to-use signal that steers agents toward alternatives. However, it never names the specific replacement among the many siblings (remember_memory, create_relations, etc.) and never says when this tool IS the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.