memvid-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap that could cause confusion. For example, memvid_find and memvid_vec_search both handle search operations with different methods, and memvid_verify and memvid_verify_single_file are similar in function but differ in scope. The descriptions help clarify, but agents might misselect between closely related tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a 'memvid_' prefix, such as memvid_fetch, memvid_ask, and memvid_audit. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count2/5
With 40 tools, the count is excessive for a memory management server, making it feel heavy and potentially overwhelming. A more focused set of 10-20 tools would be more appropriate for this domain, as many operations could be consolidated or simplified.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for memory file operations, including creation, reading, updating, deletion, search, enrichment, export, and management tasks like encryption and diagnostics. There are no obvious gaps, and it supports full CRUD/lifecycle workflows for the domain.
Average 3.3/5 across 40 of 40 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, suggesting it's a non-destructive, non-idempotent operation that may modify data. The description adds context by specifying 'build sketches for all frames' or 'show sketch statistics', but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 a single, efficient phrase: 'Sketch operations (SimHash) - build or show stats'. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and uses minimal words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating build and stats functions).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'sketch operations' involve, the output format for stats or build results, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., can both 'build' and 'stats' be true?). For a tool with 3 parameters and potential data modification, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'file', 'build', and 'stats' parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'build sketches for all frames' and 'show sketch statistics', which loosely aligns with parameter purposes but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs 'Sketch operations (SimHash) - build or show stats', which identifies the action (build/show stats) and resource (sketches/SimHash). However, it's vague about what 'sketch operations' entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like memvid_stats or memvid_process_queue that might handle similar statistical or processing tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'build or show stats' but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like memvid_stats might overlap, but there's no explicit comparison or usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context by implying traversal behavior ('follow entity relationships'), but doesn't elaborate on aspects like rate limits, auth needs, or what 'hops' entails beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without adding bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or deeper behavioral context, leaving gaps for the agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining 'hops' in more detail or the significance of 'link' types. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Follow entity relationships in the knowledge graph' states the general purpose but is vague. It mentions 'follow' as the verb and 'entity relationships' as the resource, but lacks specificity about what 'follow' entails (e.g., traversal, exploration) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like memvid_find or memvid_view, which might also involve graph operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context like starting from an entity or exploring relationships, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent without clear usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds minimal context by mentioning 'background processing'. It doesn't elaborate on what 'trigger' implies (e.g., async behavior, side effects, or rate limits), so it provides some value beyond annotations but lacks depth.
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?
The description is extremely concise with just two phrases ('Nudge operations - trigger background processing'), front-loaded and without any wasted words. Every part contributes to the purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'background processing' and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the nudge does, what 'processing' entails, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the 'file' parameter as a path to a .mv2 memory file. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs 'nudge operations' to 'trigger background processing', which gives a vague purpose but lacks specificity about what exactly is being processed or what 'nudge' entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'memvid_process_queue' or 'memvid_enrich', making it unclear how this differs from other processing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'memvid_process_queue' and 'memvid_enrich' that might involve processing, the description offers no context on when this specific 'nudge' operation is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering basic traits like non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds minimal context by implying it handles 'pending operations' but does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects, error handling, or rate limits beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while clearly stating the purpose in a concise manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and annotations cover basic traits, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on outcomes, error conditions, or interaction with siblings, leaving gaps in understanding the full context of use. This is adequate for a basic tool but with clear informational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'file' documented as 'Path to the .mv2 memory file'. The description does not add meaning beyond this, such as explaining why this file is needed or how it relates to the queue. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides no extra parameter insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Process pending operations queue' states a verb ('Process') and resource ('pending operations queue'), giving a vague purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'process' entails (e.g., execute, clear, or manage operations) and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like memvid_status or memvid_audit, which might relate to queue monitoring. This leaves ambiguity about the exact action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like memvid_status (which might check queue status) or memvid_audit (which might review operations), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which the description aligns with by including 'unbind' as an operation. The description adds value by specifying the two behavioral modes (show vs. unbind), which annotations don't cover. However, it doesn't detail side effects like what 'unbind' destroys or if it's reversible, leaving some gaps.
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 very concise with a single phrase, front-loading the core purpose. It wastes no words but could be slightly under-specified for clarity. Structure is straightforward, though it lacks elaboration that might aid understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given destructive annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the two operations but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how 'show' and 'unbind' interact. For a tool with destructive potential and multiple parameters, more context would be beneficial to ensure safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by naming 'show' and 'unbind' as operations, but it doesn't clarify their mutual exclusivity or provide additional context beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Memory binding operations - show or unbind' states the general purpose (operations on memory binding) and mentions two actions (show, unbind), but it's vague about what 'binding' means and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like memvid_lock or memvid_unlock. It provides basic direction but lacks specificity about the resource being manipulated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists two operations but doesn't explain their context, prerequisites, or relationship to other tools (e.g., memvid_lock for locking memory). Usage is implied through parameter names but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable operations with closed-world assumptions. The description adds value by specifying 'debug segment information (internal structure)', which hints at introspection or diagnostic behavior beyond basic reads. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds context about the tool's focus on internal structures, though it could be more detailed on what debugging entails.
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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Debug segment information (internal structure)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context, but its brevity is effective for a basic tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the tool's focus on debugging internal structures, which adds some context. However, for a debugging tool, more detail on what information is returned or how it aids debugging would enhance completeness, especially without an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'file' as a path to a .mv2 memory file and 'segment_type' as an enum with values explained. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as usage examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Debug segment information (internal structure)' states a general purpose (debugging) and resource (segment information) but lacks specificity about what debugging entails or what 'internal structure' means. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like memvid_audit or memvid_verify, which might also involve inspection. The purpose is vague rather than clearly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Siblings like memvid_audit or memvid_verify might overlap in debugging functions, but there's no explicit comparison or usage rules. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the three operation modes (list, stats, filter), which provides behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention output format, pagination, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an agent.
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 a single, efficient sentence that covers the core operations. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the three operation types for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the operation modes but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or examples. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'list, stats, or filter by entity', which loosely maps to the boolean parameters 'list' and 'stats' and the string parameter 'entity', but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Memory card operations - list, stats, or filter by entity' states the general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'memory cards' are or what resource is being operated on. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., memvid_create, memvid_delete) by implying read-only operations, but doesn't clearly differentiate from similar tools like memvid_view or memvid_stats. The description is vague about the exact verb and resource scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list', 'stats', or 'filter by entity' operations, nor does it reference sibling tools like memvid_stats or memvid_view that might overlap in functionality. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the two operational modes ('infer' and 'show schema summary'), which gives context about what the tool actually does behaviorally. There's no contradiction with annotations.
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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to clarify the two modes. It avoids redundancy and waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety aspects, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain the relationship between the two boolean parameters, what 'infer' actually does, or what format the summary takes. For a tool with multiple operational modes, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description mentions 'infer or show schema summary', which aligns with the boolean parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs 'schema operations - infer or show schema summary', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resource it operates on (memory files) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like memvid_tables or memvid_stats that might also provide schema-related information. The description is vague about the exact nature of the operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for choosing between 'infer' and 'summary' modes, or how it differs from other schema-related tools in the sibling list. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the basic function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying this is for 'state management' and 'show current memory state,' which implies it's a read-only diagnostic tool. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'state' entails (e.g., memory usage, file status). No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 concise with two phrases: 'State management' and 'show current memory state.' It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, 'State management' is somewhat redundant with 'show current memory state,' and it could be more structured by integrating the two ideas into a single, clearer sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and many sibling tools, it lacks details on what 'current memory state' includes, how it differs from other state-related tools, or expected return values. For a diagnostic tool in a complex server, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'file' as a path to a .mv2 memory file and 'show' as a boolean to display current state. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the .mv2 format or what 'show' toggles. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'State management - show current memory state' states the tool's purpose as showing current memory state, which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'memory state' includes or how it differs from sibling tools like memvid_status or memvid_view that might also display state information. The description lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from similar tools in the server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might relate to memory state (e.g., memvid_status, memvid_view, memvid_memories), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying that it lists 'internal tables and structures', implying a metadata or schema-like output, though it doesn't detail format, pagination, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, this extra context earns a good score.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has annotations (read-only, non-destructive) and a simple input schema, but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values or behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'file' documented as 'Path to the .mv2 memory file'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as file format details or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List internal tables and structures' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('internal tables and structures'), but it's vague about what these tables/structures are (e.g., from a memory file) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'memvid_schema' or 'memvid_view' which might relate to similar concepts. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'memvid_schema', 'memvid_view'), the description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying 'vector-only similarity search', which clarifies the search method (semantic vs. other types) and implies it's for similarity-based retrieval, not exact matches. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it provides useful context beyond them, though more details on output or limitations could enhance it.
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?
The description is extremely concise with 'Vector-only similarity search (semantic search)', a single phrase that front-loads key information. Every word earns its place by specifying the method and type of search, with no wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear annotations and schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has annotations covering safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent) and a well-documented input schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on output (no output schema provided) and doesn't fully address when to use it versus siblings. For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, more context on result format or limitations would improve completeness, but it's not incomplete enough to score lower.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'file' (path to .mv2 memory file), 'query' (search query text), and 'limit' (maximum results). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already documents parameters effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Vector-only similarity search (semantic search)' states the action (search) and method (vector/semantic), but it's vague about the resource being searched (memory files). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'memvid_find' or 'memvid_search' (if they existed), though 'memvid_find' might be a different type of search. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what's being searched.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'vector-only' and 'semantic search', but it doesn't explain when this is preferable over other tools (e.g., 'memvid_find' might be keyword-based). There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, such as implying it fetches and stores content, but doesn't detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or how duplicates are handled. With annotations covering key traits, the description adds some value but lacks depth.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to grasp quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has annotations covering safety and behavior, and a well-documented input schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks output details (no output schema) and usage context. For a tool that modifies memory by fetching external content, more guidance on error handling or result format would improve completeness, but annotations provide a basic safety net.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'file', 'url', and 'title'. The description mentions 'URL' and 'memory', aligning with parameters, but doesn't add extra meaning like format specifics or usage tips. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fetch content from a URL') and the outcome ('add to memory'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'memvid_put' or 'memvid_put_many', which might also add content to memory, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing memory file, or compare it to sibling tools like 'memvid_put' (which might add content from other sources). This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the RAG method, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like rate limits, auth needs, or output format. It doesn't contradict annotations, so a baseline score is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a RAG tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It states the core purpose but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration with siblings. With annotations providing safety info, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guiding full usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or typical values. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Ask a question') and the method ('using RAG'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'memvid_find' or 'memvid_vec_search', which might also involve retrieval or querying, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other query-related siblings like 'memvid_find' or 'memvid_vec_search'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal context beyond this, mentioning 'sources and citations' which hints at output format but doesn't detail report structure, performance, or limitations. No contradiction with annotations, but value addition is limited.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Generate an audit report with sources and citations.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on report format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, it meets a basic threshold but leaves gaps in practical usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Path to the .mv2 memory file' for 'file'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate an audit report with sources and citations.' It specifies the action ('generate'), resource ('audit report'), and key outputs ('sources and citations'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_verify' or 'memvid_facts' that might also involve analysis or reporting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'memvid_verify', 'memvid_facts', 'memvid_find'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and purpose, lacking explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive, and the description adds that it 'creates correction record,' implying a non-destructive amendment with logging. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Correct/amend content of a frame') and adds necessary context ('creates correction record'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and outcome but lacks details on return values, error cases, or interaction with other tools like memvid_audit. Annotations provide safety hints, but more behavioral context would improve completeness given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond implying 'content' is the corrected version, but this is already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Correct/amend content') and resource ('of a frame'), specifying it creates a correction record. It distinguishes from siblings like memvid_update or memvid_put by focusing on frame correction rather than general updates, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memvid_update or memvid_put, which might also modify content. The description mentions creating a correction record but doesn't clarify if this is for audit trails, versioning, or specific use cases compared to other update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover basic traits (non-readOnly, non-destructive, etc.), but the description adds minimal context beyond 'create a new file.' It doesn't disclose details like file creation constraints, error conditions, or interactions with existing files, offering limited behavioral insight.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema (1 parameter) and annotations covering safety traits, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema) and doesn't address file format specifics or error handling, leaving gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'file' documented as 'Path to the .mv2 memory file.' The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new .mv2 memory file'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_put' or 'memvid_put_many' which might also create files, missing explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, file overwriting behavior, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying the enrichment type (NER) and goal (extract entities), but it lacks details on side effects, performance, or output format, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and goal, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the 'what' but lacks details on 'how' (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage context, which would improve completeness for an enrichment tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'all' and 'frame_id' or typical values. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run NER enrichment') and the goal ('to extract entities'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also perform entity extraction or enrichment, though no obvious direct siblings exist in the provided list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other enrichment or processing tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide basic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-openWorld), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'export' entails operationally (e.g., file overwriting, memory usage, or side effects). No contradictions with annotations exist, but the description doesn't enrich understanding beyond the structured data.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and formats, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element serves a clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For an export operation, more context on file behavior or data scope would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all parameters (file path, output path, format with enum, frame_ids array). The description only mentions formats generically without adding syntax, constraints, or usage details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and resource ('memory data') with specific output formats listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on data export rather than other operations like creation, deletion, or querying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar export functions in sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., memvid_view, memvid_tables, memvid_find), there's no indication of whether this is the primary export method or if other tools might also export data in different contexts. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal context beyond this, mentioning extraction from a frame but not detailing output format, error conditions, or performance aspects. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers limited additional behavioral insight.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase: 'Fact extraction - list facts or extract from frame'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the description earns its place by hinting at the tool's dual functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The annotations provide safety and idempotency context, but the description doesn't fully leverage this to guide usage effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between 'frame_id' and 'list' or file format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Fact extraction - list facts or extract from frame', which specifies the verb (extract/list) and resource (facts). It distinguishes this from most sibling tools that perform different operations like create, delete, or search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'memvid_ask' or 'memvid_find' that might also retrieve information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for choosing between 'list' and 'frame_id' extraction, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'memvid_ask' for querying facts or 'memvid_find' for searching. Usage is implied through parameter names but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds context about search modes (hybrid/lex/vec) which isn't in annotations, but doesn't explain what these modes mean, performance characteristics, or what 'search in a memory file' actually returns. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with good annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain what results look like (e.g., relevance scores, snippets, structured data). It also doesn't help the agent choose between this and 'memvid_vec_search' or explain the practical differences between search modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'hybrid, lexical, or vector search' which relates to the 'mode' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('in a memory file'), and specifies the search methods ('hybrid, lexical, or vector search'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'memvid_create' or 'memvid_delete', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'memvid_vec_search' which appears to be a more specific version of this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memvid_vec_search' (which appears to be a vector-only version) or 'memvid_ask' (which might be a different query approach). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose different search modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), which the description aligns with by describing encryption without implying deletion. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't mention side effects like file creation, password handling security, or error conditions.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Encrypt a memory file') and specifies the output format. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on encryption behavior, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying encryption uses a password (mentioned in the schema as 'required for non-interactive use'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Encrypt') and resource ('a memory file'), specifying it creates a .mv2e encrypted file. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'memvid_unlock' (decryption) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file operations like 'memvid_export' or 'memvid_verify_single_file'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or when other tools like 'memvid_unlock' (decryption) or 'memvid_export' (exporting) might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal context by specifying 'embedding models', but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, auth needs, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided) and doesn't clarify the scope of 'available' models (e.g., local vs. remote). For a simple list tool, it's minimally viable but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'model_type' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the significance of the model types or default behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List available embedding models' clearly states the action (list) and resource (embedding models), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list-like siblings such as 'memvid_tables' or 'memvid_schema', which could also involve listing operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'memvid_find', 'memvid_search'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool over others, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description adds minimal value. It mentions 'display information', which hints at output behavior, but doesn't detail format or limitations. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly for the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema (1 parameter, 100% coverage), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on what 'display information' entails (e.g., format, scope) and usage context, which could help the agent better anticipate outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'file' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as file format details or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Open and display') and the resource ('memory file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'memvid_view' or 'memvid_find', which might have overlapping functionality with displaying information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'memvid_view', 'memvid_find'), the description lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'from a file or directory' and implies content addition, but doesn't disclose effects like whether existing content is overwritten, authentication needs, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Add content to a memory file') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and annotations provide basic hints, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correct invocation in a complex sibling toolset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'input' can be a file or directory, which is already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add content') and target resource ('memory file'), specifying it works 'from a file or directory'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_put_many' or 'memvid_create', which likely have overlapping functionality with memory files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'memvid_put_many', 'memvid_create', 'memvid_update'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for choosing this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide basic hints (e.g., readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds context by specifying the four possible actions (list, start, stop, replay) and the required file parameter. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as what 'stop' entails (e.g., whether data is saved), error conditions, or session persistence. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, efficient sentence: 'Session management - list, start, stop, or replay sessions'. Every word earns its place by summarizing the tool's core functionality without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and actions but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how parameters interact (e.g., if 'list' and 'start' can be used together). For a session management tool with multiple operations, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'file' as path to .mv2 memory file, 'list' as boolean to list sessions). The description mentions the actions (list, start, stop, replay) which align with parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Session management - list, start, stop, or replay sessions', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from most siblings that handle different operations (e.g., memvid_create, memvid_delete, memvid_view), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like memvid_state or memvid_status that might also relate to session states.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when a session must be active), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like memvid_state or memvid_status that might overlap in functionality. Usage is implied through the listed actions but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds minimal context beyond this - it specifies the tool shows statistics, but doesn't describe what statistics are included, format of output, or any behavioral constraints. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets the lower bar but adds limited 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Show statistics for a memory file'. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, good annotations covering safety), the description is adequate but has gaps. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what statistics are shown or the return format. The annotations provide good safety context, but for a statistics tool, users might want to know what metrics are included. It's minimally viable but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'file' fully documented as 'Path to the .mv2 memory file'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show statistics for a memory file' clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('memory file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_status' or 'memvid_view' which might also provide status information about memory files, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'memvid_status' and 'memvid_view' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this specific statistics tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other informational tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it implies a display/visualization action but doesn't mention output format, pagination, or performance characteristics. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and a read-only operation that likely returns structured data (a timeline), the description could better hint at the return format or data shape to aid the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Path to the .mv2 memory file' for 'file'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'limit' interacts with filtering or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show chronological timeline of frames' clearly states the verb ('show') and resource ('chronological timeline of frames'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_view' or 'memvid_facts', but the specific focus on timeline visualization is reasonably distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'memvid_view', 'memvid_facts', 'memvid_memories'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide basic hints (non-readonly, non-destructive, etc.), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'non-interactive use' for the password parameter, which is useful implementation detail. However, it doesn't describe what happens during decryption (e.g., file overwriting, error conditions, or performance characteristics) beyond what annotations already cover.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward decryption operation and gets directly to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a decryption tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the decrypted file contains or any post-decryption state changes. The description could better address the tool's role within the broader memory management context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('decrypt') and the resource ('encrypted memory file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'memvid_lock' (the encryption counterpart), which would be helpful for sibling tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including 'memvid_lock' for encryption), there's no indication of prerequisites, typical workflows, or when this decryption operation is appropriate versus other memory manipulation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations clearly indicate this is a destructive, non-readonly, non-idempotent operation, which covers the safety profile. The description could have added context about what 'destructive' means in practice (e.g., overwrites existing content permanently) or mentioned any side effects, but it doesn't contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The annotations provide crucial safety information (destructiveHint: true), but the description doesn't explain what happens after the update, whether there's confirmation, or what errors might occur. Given the complexity of frame updates in memory files, more context about the operation's impact would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters (file path, frame ID, new content). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as file format details, content constraints, or frame ID ranges beyond the schema's 'minimum: 0'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target resource ('content of a specific frame'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like memvid_correct or memvid_put, which might also modify frame content, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific update method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., memvid_correct, memvid_put, memvid_put_many), there's no indication of whether this is the primary update method, when other tools might be more appropriate, or what prerequisites exist for using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation with closed-world behavior. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'integrity' verification, but doesn't elaborate on what 'integrity' entails (e.g., checksums, data corruption) or performance implications of the 'deep' parameter. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action ('verify integrity') and resource ('memory file'). It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety and idempotency well, but the description lacks details on what 'integrity' means, expected outcomes, or error conditions. Without an output schema, the agent must infer return values. It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('file' as path to .mv2 memory file, 'deep' as boolean for thorough verification). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the trade-offs of 'deep' verification or file format details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's comprehensive coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('verify') and resource ('integrity of a memory file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'memvid_verify_single_file', which appears to serve a similar verification function, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'memvid_verify_single_file' or other verification-related tools like 'memvid_audit'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only specifying 'integrity' verification without detailing what that entails (e.g., checksums, validation methods). It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides limited additional behavioral insight.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Verify integrity of a single frame') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and resource concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (verification operation with 2 parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on verification methods, error handling, or output format, which could help an agent use it more effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('file' as path to .mv2 memory file, 'frame_id' as non-negative integer). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Verify integrity of a single frame' clearly states the action (verify) and resource (frame), and the title 'Verify Frame' reinforces this. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_verify' (which might verify multiple frames or something broader), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'memvid_verify' (which likely handles multiple frames or different verification scopes) or other verification-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds minimal value by specifying 'content of a specific frame' but doesn't disclose additional traits like output format, error handling, or performance characteristics. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully describes parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what 'content' looks like (e.g., text, metadata, structured data), leaving a gap in completeness for a viewing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining frame ID ranges or raw formatting details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('View content') and resource ('specific frame'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_find' or 'memvid_timeline' that might also involve viewing frame content, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'memvid_find' or 'memvid_timeline' that might retrieve frame-related data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific viewing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide clear behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only implying it searches memory files for temporal mentions. It doesn't describe response format, error conditions, or performance characteristics, but doesn't contradict annotations either.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (temporal search with 3 parameters), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what results look like (e.g., timestamps, context snippets). The annotations cover safety but the description could better address the tool's specific behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax, file format details, or result ordering). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Temporal search - find when something was mentioned', which specifies the action (temporal search) and resource (mentions in memory files). It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on time-related queries, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like memvid_timeline or memvid_find that might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like memvid_find, memvid_timeline, or memvid_facts that might serve similar search functions. The user must infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering the core safety and behavioral profile. The description adds minimal context beyond this - it implies the tool retrieves information rather than modifies it, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific 'entity information' includes.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just two phrases, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. The structure moves directly from general function to specific action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (entity lookup with 2 required parameters), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain what 'entity information' includes, the format of results, or how it differs from similar tools. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for the description's brevity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Entity lookup - find information about an entity', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memvid_find, memvid_search, or memvid_ask by focusing on entity information retrieval rather than general finding or questioning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential sibling tools in the extensive list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like memvid_find, memvid_ask, memvid_search, and memvid_facts that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this specific entity lookup tool is preferred. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds minimal context by specifying what status information is returned (version, NER model status), but doesn't elaborate on format, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond annotations.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with no wasted words. Every element ('show system status', 'version', 'NER model status') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only status tool with no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output format details (no output schema provided) and doesn't fully address when this tool is preferable over siblings, leaving some contextual gaps.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('show') and resources ('system status'), including details like version and NER model status. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on system diagnostics rather than data operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for checking system health, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with similar tools like memvid_version or memvid_models.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description doesn't repeat, avoiding redundancy. The description adds value by specifying 'a specific frame', implying targeted deletion rather than bulk operations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the frame doesn't exist) or side effects (e.g., impact on related data), which would be helpful given the destructive nature.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and resource ('a specific frame'), making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output (no schema provided) or error conditions. For a destructive tool, more context on consequences or success indicators would improve completeness, but annotations partially compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'force' parameter's implications or typical use cases for 'frame_id'. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a specific frame'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'memvid_update' or 'memvid_create' by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential destructive siblings like 'memvid_unlock' or 'memvid_put', which might also modify data, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing frame), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion), or direct alternatives like 'memvid_put' for updates or 'memvid_create' for additions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent operation (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false), but the description adds valuable context by specifying it's for 'diagnose and repair' of memory files. This implies potential data modification or restoration, which aligns with and elaborates on the annotations without contradiction.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for its complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature indicated by annotations and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it doesn't explain what 'diagnose' entails (e.g., error reporting) or the implications of 'repair' (e.g., data recovery), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear for a tool with significant mutation potential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters (file path and four boolean flags for index rebuilding and dry run). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('diagnose and repair') and resource ('a memory file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'memvid_verify' or 'memvid_audit' which might also involve file inspection, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'memvid_verify', 'memvid_audit', and 'memvid_correct' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for this diagnostic and repair tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover basic traits (non-readOnly, non-destructive, etc.), but the description adds context about 'progress tracking' and batch processing behavior. It doesn't disclose rate limits, auth needs, or detailed error handling, so it provides moderate value beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('Batch add multiple files') and avoids redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch mutation tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Annotations help, but more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'directory' and 'progress tracking,' which loosely maps to 'input' and batch operations, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema's details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Batch add multiple files') and resource ('from a directory'), specifying the scope of batch operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'memvid_put' (which likely handles single files), missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch operations with progress tracking, suggesting it's for adding multiple files efficiently. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'memvid_put' (for single files) or other alternatives, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation with a closed world. The description adds value by specifying it prints 'version information,' which clarifies the type of data returned beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't detail format, output structure, or any rate limits, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it ideal for quick comprehension by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain what 'version information' includes (e.g., software version, build details) or the output format, which could be helpful for an agent to understand the result. With no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to compensate. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters, earning a baseline score. A 5 is reserved for cases where the description adds significant semantic context beyond an empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Print memvid version information' clearly states the verb ('Print') and resource ('memvid version information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'memvid_status' or 'memvid_stats', which might also provide system information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'memvid_status' and 'memvid_stats' that might overlap in providing system information, there's no indication of when this specific version tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from other informational tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context by specifying what configuration elements are shown (embedder settings, paths), which isn't covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Show current configuration') and adds specific details ('embedder settings, paths') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no parameters and rich annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on output format or behavior (e.g., structured data vs. plain text), which could be helpful given no output schema. It meets basic needs but doesn't fully leverage the opportunity to guide the agent.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's output scope without redundant parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current configuration'), specifying it includes embedder settings and paths. It distinguishes this from siblings like memvid_create or memvid_update by focusing on read-only configuration display rather than mutation operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (checking current settings) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memvid_status or memvid_state. It provides no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![memvid-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Tapiocapioca/memvid-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Tapiocapioca/memvid-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![memvid-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Tapiocapioca/memvid-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Tapiocapioca/memvid-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Tapiocapioca/memvid-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server