MidOS Research Protocol MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Store' implies a write operation, the description fails to disclose idempotency, persistence guarantees, or what the output schema represents (e.g., whether it returns the created memory ID or a success confirmation).

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?

The description is appropriately front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by structured parameter documentation. While the Args block format is slightly informal for an MCP description, it is concise and every sentence earns its place by compensating for the missing schema metadata.

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 simple parameter structure and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs. However, it lacks necessary context about the tool's relationship to the memory system (e.g., how these memories are later retrieved) and omits behavioral expectations for a state-modifying 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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section documents all three parameters, including the implied enum values for task_type (CODE, RESEARCH, DEBUG, REVIEW) and the default behavior of success. This adds critical semantic meaning absent from the raw schema.

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 'Store[s] a new episodic memory/reflection' with a specific verb and resource type. However, it could better distinguish from sibling search tools (episodic_search, semantic_search) by clarifying that this specifically persists task outcomes rather than general knowledge.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like episodic_search or semantic_search. Given the sibling tools include multiple retrieval mechanisms, the description should specify when to store versus retrieve memories, and what constitutes an 'episodic' memory worthy of storage.

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