SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Return', which is consistent with typical getter functions, but does not specify permissions, side effects, or response format. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action, missing details like error handling or data freshness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resources. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, 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.

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, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what is returned, and since an output schema exists, it need not detail return values. However, it could improve by mentioning typical use cases or integration with sibling tools for better context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage with an empty object. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, as none exist, and focuses on the output. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, providing clarity without unnecessary detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the specific resources returned ('current project root, DB path, and export directory'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_info' or 'get_database_health', which might provide overlapping or related information, so it misses full distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'server_info' for general server details or 'get_database_health' for database status. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for invocation, leaving usage unclear.

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