Analyze the memory knowledge graph read-only to find structural gaps like isolated entities, underconnected hubs, type silos, and missing decisions or lessons.
Analyze the knowledge graph for structural gaps. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | analyze: the only action. Reports isolated entities, underconnected hubs, type silos, observation gaps (missing decisions/lessons), and statistical density anomalies. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.25.0Input schema / properties / action / descriptionPrevious value: -"Gap analysis action (only 'analyze' supported)"New value: +"analyze: the only action. Reports isolated entities, underconnected hubs, type silos, observation gaps (missing decisions/lessons), and statistical density anomalies."v0.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait 'Read-only', which is genuinely useful safety information, but says nothing about output shape, cost, or side effects beyond that. The read-only claim is also largely implied by the schema's 'Reports...' wording, so the added value is modest.
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, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the safety trait. Nothing is wasted or padded.
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 single-parameter, read-only analysis tool the definition is nearly sufficient: the schema's enum description enumerates what the analysis reports (isolated entities, hubs, silos, observation gaps, density anomalies), which effectively covers the return content despite there being no output schema. The main missing piece is any guidance on when to use it versus its siblings.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'action' enum is fully documented in the schema itself, including what the analysis reports. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('the knowledge graph') with a clear scope ('structural gaps'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling memory_reflexion, which likely performs the analogous analysis over memory.
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?
No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. The many sibling tools (cuba_* / memory_* pairs) make routing ambiguous, and the description offers no help in choosing this one over memory_reflexion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.