memora
Server Quality Checklist
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v0.1.0
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.
- This server provides 35 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Are you the author?
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is read-only, what similarity threshold semantics apply, or performance characteristics. The mention of 'vector embeddings' hints at the mechanism but doesn't explain behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, extreme brevity contributes to underspecification; the conciseness is technically good but comes at the cost of necessary detail given the tool complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with zero schema documentation, numerous sibling tools requiring differentiation, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe returns), the description fails to address parameter semantics or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate for undocumented parameters (top_k, metadata_filters, min_score). The description mentions none of these specifically, only implicitly referencing the query concept through 'semantic search'. Inadequate compensation for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs semantic search using vector embeddings, identifying the core mechanism. However, it fails to specify the search domain (the memory system) or distinguish from siblings like memory_hybrid_search or memory_clusters, which is critical given the extensive sibling tool list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_hybrid_search or memory_list. The description offers no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'in one call' hints at performance efficiency, the description lacks critical details about atomicity (all-or-nothing vs. partial success), error handling for invalid entries, or rate limiting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficiently worded without redundancy, and the key information (batch creation) is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification for a tool of this complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the flexible input schema (untyped object array), numerous sibling tools, and mutation nature of the operation, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (reducing the need for return value documentation), the lack of parameter guidance or behavioral constraints leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description fails to compensate. The 'entries' parameter accepts an array of objects with additionalProperties:true (highly flexible structure), yet the description provides no guidance on expected memory object fields, required properties, or entry structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action (Create) and target resource (memories), while 'in one call' clarifies the batch efficiency aspect. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus the singular memory_create tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to prefer this batch operation over multiple calls to memory_create, nor are there any prerequisites, constraints, or limits mentioned for the batch operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'cross-referenced' hints at the relationship algorithm, the description fails to explain what constitutes a cross-reference, whether this operation is cached, or what the boolean 'refresh' parameter actually triggers (forced recalculation vs. cache hit).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficiently worded with no redundancy, but given the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, this brevity is inappropriate. The description is under-specified rather than effectively concise, failing to front-load critical usage constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete due to undocumented parameters and lack of sibling differentiation. For a complex memory system with 30+ tools, the agent needs more context to invoke this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by documenting both 'memory_id' and 'refresh'. It only vaguely alludes to 'given entry' (presumably memory_id) and completely omits the 'refresh' parameter's semantics, leaving critical parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Return') and resource ('cross-referenced memories'), and the term 'cross-referenced' effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like memory_get or memory_list. However, 'given entry' is slightly vague compared to the actual parameter name 'memory_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 memory_hybrid_search, memory_clusters, or memory_get. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context to help an agent select this tool correctly from the 30+ available memory tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Return' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose what constitutes a 'namespace', depth limitations, or whether the hierarchy is computed dynamically vs stored.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, extreme brevity becomes a liability given the lack of schema documentation and annotations, leaving critical gaps unexplained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete due to zero parameter documentation and no differentiation from the numerous sibling memory tools. The 'include_root' parameter particularly requires explanation given the 0% schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (parameter has title but no description field), and the description text completely omits any mention of 'include_root'. The agent has no way to understand what 'root' refers to or the implications of including/excluding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Return) and the resource (stored tags) with specific organization (namespace hierarchy). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'memory_tags' (likely flat) or 'memory_hierarchy' (possibly item-based vs tag-based).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives like 'memory_tags' or 'memory_hierarchy'. The agent must infer from the name alone that this specifically returns tags (not memories) in a hierarchical structure.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, there is no information about whether deletions are permanent, reversible, atomic (all-or-nothing), or if there are cascade effects on related memories. The existence of an output schema is noted in context signals, but the description doesn't hint at what behavioral information it contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness given the complexity of batch destructive operations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a destructive batch operation. Missing: safety warnings about data loss, distinction from memory_delete, batch size limitations, and error handling semantics. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description fails to address the higher risk profile of batch deletion compared to read operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (only title 'Ids' present). The description adds minimal compensation by confirming the parameter represents 'id' values, but fails to specify constraints like maximum batch size, whether invalid IDs cause partial failure or full rejection, or the integer format expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), resource (memories), and method (by id). The inclusion of 'multiple' helps distinguish it from the singular sibling tool memory_delete, though it could explicitly mention the batch nature or contrast with the single-delete alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus memory_delete or other alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, batch size limits, or conditions where batch deletion is preferred over individual deletions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'report invalid entries', it fails to clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies invalid tags, or what the validation criteria specifically checks (format, existence, etc.).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place by conveying the core operation, scope (allowlist), and outcome (reporting invalid entries) without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the 'include_memories' parameter or define what constitutes the 'allowlist', leaving significant gaps despite the existence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate for the undocumented 'include_memories' parameter. The description adds no information about this boolean parameter, leaving its purpose (whether to include memory objects in the validation report) entirely implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('stored tags') and clarifies the validation is 'against the allowlist' with reporting of 'invalid entries'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_tags (which likely just lists tags) by specifying the allowlist validation context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., memory_tags or memory_tag_hierarchy), nor does it mention prerequisites like the existence of an allowlist or whether this operation is safe to run frequently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 fails to specify whether deletion is permanent, whether linked memories (relevant given memory_link/unlink siblings) are affected, or what happens if the ID does not exist. The word 'Delete' implies destruction but lacks necessary operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at four words. While efficient and front-loaded with the verb, the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of necessary context given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions. No words are wasted, but more content is needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the existence of an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is inadequate for the context. With zero schema coverage, no annotations, and the presence of a batch deletion sibling, the tool lacks sufficient guidance on parameter semantics, error handling, and usage differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by indicating the operation uses an 'id', which maps semantically to the memory_id parameter. However, it does not describe the ID format, constraints, or whether it refers to a local or global identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description provides a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('memory'), and the phrase 'by id' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool memory_delete_batch. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or clarify that this is for single-record deletion only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_delete_batch, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., verifying the memory exists) or error conditions. The description states what the tool does but not when an agent should select it over alternatives.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return value ('Dictionary with count of cleared events') which is helpful, but fails to explain what 'consumed' means (archived? deleted? flagged?), whether the operation is reversible, or error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses a structured Args/Returns format that is easy to parse. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. While the Returns section may be redundant if a formal output schema exists (per context signals), the content is efficient with no unnecessary prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a single-parameter tool with no annotations, covering the basic operation and parameter meaning. However, given the existence of memory_events_poll as a sibling, the description is incomplete without explaining the event lifecycle workflow relationship.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the description to provide all semantic meaning. It explains that event_ids are used 'to mark as consumed,' adding purpose context beyond the schema's bare 'Event Ids' title. However, it omits constraints (max batch size) and source guidance (obtain IDs from memory_events_poll).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the core action ('Mark events as consumed') with a specific verb and resource, but uses jargon ('consumed') without defining the state change. Fails to distinguish from sibling memory_events_poll or clarify that this likely acknowledges events retrieved via polling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the prerequisite workflow (typically calling memory_events_poll first to obtain the event_ids). No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisites are documented.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the `compact` mode behavior (returning id/preview/tags vs full data) and notes the hierarchy is derived from metadata. However, it fails to describe the hierarchy structure itself (tree depth, nesting logic), pagination behavior, or performance characteristics of the 9-parameter query system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args:' section for `compact` is slightly informal for MCP conventions but efficiently conveys the parameter's behavior without verbosity. No redundant or filler text is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 optional filtering parameters and complex hierarchy output, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the complete lack of documentation for 8/9 input parameters—particularly the tag filtering and date range options—creates significant gaps for an agent attempting to construct valid queries.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage across 9 parameters, the description must compensate but only documents `compact`. Critical filtering parameters (`query`, `metadata_filters`, `tags_any`/`all`/`none`, date ranges, `include_root`) remain completely unexplained, leaving users to guess at filtering syntax and semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'memories organised into a hierarchy derived from their metadata,' specifying both the action (return/organize) and the organizational principle (metadata-derived hierarchy). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like `memory_tag_hierarchy` (which organizes tags, not memories) or `memory_clusters`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 `memory_list`, `memory_list_compact`, or `memory_clusters`. It doesn't indicate whether this is for browsing, searching, or analyzing memory structure, nor does it mention prerequisites or filtering best practices.
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?
Adds valuable behavioral context not in the schema: explain that suggest_similar 'find similar memories and suggest consolidation' and that response_mode controls 'payload size'. However, lacks safety/disposition details (idempotency, failure modes) since no annotations are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses a standard Args format that efficiently maps parameters to descriptions. Front-loaded purpose statement is good. Slightly mechanical structure, but appropriate given the need to document 6 undocumented parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for parameter documentation and acknowledges output payload options, but incomplete regarding the tool ecosystem (no sibling differentiation) and lacks behavioral safety context expected for a creation tool without annotation support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description comprehensively documents all 6 parameters, including defaults, types (e.g., 'dictionary', 'list'), and semantic meaning (e.g., 'minimum similarity score for suggestions'), fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the basic action (create) and resource (memory entry) clearly, but fails to distinguish from sibling creation tools like memory_create_batch, memory_create_issue, memory_create_section, and memory_create_todo, which is critical given the large tool family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this single-entry creation tool versus memory_create_batch or the specialized creation tools (issue/section/todo). No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Return' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm idempotency, safety guarantees, caching behavior, or whether the allowlist is user-specific or global. It omits critical behavioral context required for agent confidence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single, efficient sentence with zero redundancy. Every word serves to identify the tool's function, and the front-loaded structure immediately communicates the core purpose without filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters) and presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description meets minimum viability. However, it lacks explanation of what constitutes 'allowlisted' tags versus regular tags, and fails to clarify scope (global vs. user-specific), leaving contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% description coverage (trivially). Per the evaluation rubric, 0-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the empty schema already communicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('allowlisted tags'), clearly indicating it retrieves a list of approved tags. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'memory_tag_hierarchy', which also deals with tags but likely returns hierarchical structure rather than a flat allowlist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'memory_tag_hierarchy' or when retrieving tags within memory objects via other tools. No prerequisites, filtering options, or usage constraints 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the file output behavior (including default path) and return value structure, but fails to mention critical behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, performance limits, or the meaning/scale of the 'similarity score' (e.g., 0-1 range).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that efficiently organizes information with minimal waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the subsequent sections logically group technical details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate coverage by explaining both parameters (critical given schema gaps) and summarizing the return dictionary contents. It appropriately omits exhaustive return value details that would be in the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage (titles only), the description effectively compensates by documenting both parameters: 'output_path' as the HTML save location and 'min_score' as the edge similarity threshold. It includes default values, though it could further clarify the valid range for the score parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (export), resource (memories), and unique format (interactive HTML knowledge graph), which distinguishes it from the generic 'memory_export' sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify when to choose this over other visualization siblings like 'memory_clusters' or 'memory_hierarchy'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'memory_export' (likely for raw data) or other visualization tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-based recommendations provided.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the read-only nature via 'Get', but fails to mention computational cost, caching behavior, or what specific metrics are included (though an output schema exists to cover return values).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 7 words with zero redundancy. The action is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Appropriately sized for a zero-parameter statistics retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and zero input parameters, the description covers the minimal necessary ground. However, given the crowded sibling namespace (26+ tools), the description lacks guidance on what specific insights this provides versus memory_insights or memory_clusters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage. With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action ('Get') and resource ('statistics and analytics about stored memories'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like memory_create or memory_search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from memory_insights, which may also return analytics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_list, memory_insights, or memory_clusters. No mention of prerequisites or conditions where this is preferred.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the return structure ('Dictionary with count and list of events') and introduces the 'unconsumed' event state concept, but lacks critical details about side effects, rate limiting, authentication requirements, or how events are generated in the memory system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a standard docstring format with clear Args and Returns sections. The first sentence effectively front-loads the purpose. However, the Returns description is minimally verbose and could be more specific about the event structure, though this is partially mitigated by the existence of an output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description adequately covers the three parameters given zero schema coverage, it lacks context about the memory event system itself—what generates these events, their lifecycle, or how they relate to the broader memory toolset. For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, additional conceptual context would strengthen agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the Args section provides excellent compensation by documenting all three parameters: since_timestamp includes the ISO format requirement, tags_filter includes a concrete example (['shared-cache']), and unconsumed_only clarifies its default value. This adds substantial meaning absent from the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Poll[s] for memory events' with a concrete example ('shared-cache notifications'), establishing the verb and resource. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish this read operation from the sibling tool 'memory_events_clear', which could cause confusion about which tool handles event retrieval versus deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor does it explain the event consumption lifecycle (e.g., whether polling marks events as consumed or how unconsumed_only interacts with system state). There is no mention of prerequisites or polling frequency recommendations.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context about the include_images parameter stripping image data 'to reduce response size,' which explains performance implications. However, it fails to indicate whether this is a safe read-only operation or if there are side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with no wasted words. Front-loaded one-line purpose statement followed by structured Args documentation. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter retrieval tool. Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. Documents all parameters given the schema's lack of descriptions. Minor gap: lacks safety/disposition indication (read-only vs destructive) which would be helpful given no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by documenting both parameters in the Args section. It explains memory_id purpose and details the optimization behavior of include_images ('strip image data from metadata'), adding meaning beyond just the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('memory'), and scope ('single memory by id'). The 'by id' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list or memory_semantic_search, though it could explicitly name alternatives for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_list, memory_semantic_search, or memory_hybrid_search. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to obtain the ID from another tool) or when not to use 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context including date format examples ('7d', '1m'), tag logic (OR/AND/NOT), and sorting defaults. However, it omits critical traits like confirming the read-only nature, rate limits, or how pagination behaves with 'unlimited' defaults.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section. While the Args block is lengthy, every line is necessary given the schema coverage gap. Minor redundancy ('Optional' repeated) prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While parameters are thoroughly documented and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe returns), the description fails to address the complex sibling landscape. For a tool with 10 parameters and numerous alternative search/list methods, guidance on the specific use case (substring vs. semantic) is missing, leaving significant contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (titles only), but the description comprehensively compensates by documenting all 10 parameters with precise semantics, default values, and format examples (e.g., ISO or relative dates). This is exemplary parameter documentation via description text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists memories with optional filtering by substring or metadata, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like `memory_semantic_search` or `memory_list_compact`, leaving ambiguity about which listing tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this substring-based search versus vector-based alternatives (`memory_semantic_search`, `memory_hybrid_search`), nor any mention of prerequisites or pagination limits. The agent receives no help selecting this tool over its many siblings.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully documents the bidirectional removal behavior and indicates the return type ('Dict with removed links'), but fails to disclose error handling (e.g., behavior when link doesn't exist), idempotency, or whether the operation is destructive/reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The docstring format with Args/Returns sections is efficient and appropriately structured. The content is front-loaded with no filler text, though the Returns description ('Dict with removed links') is somewhat vague and could be more specific about the structure without violating conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter mutation tool with no safety annotations, the description covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks critical behavioral context such as error conditions, idempotency guarantees, or side effects. Given the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the brief return description is acceptable but the safety/operational gaps are notable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to fully compensate. It excellently documents all three parameters: `from_id` and `to_id` are semantically labeled as 'Source' and 'Target' memory IDs, and `bidirectional` includes both behavioral explanation ('also remove reverse link') and default value information not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Remove a link between two memories') with a specific verb and resource type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this operation from sibling tools like `memory_delete` (which removes memories themselves) or clarify that this targets relationships rather than entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., `memory_delete`), nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the memories must exist or whether the link must exist beforehand. There are no 'when-not-to-use' exclusions or workflow 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the partial-update semantics (PATCH-like behavior), which is critical. However, it omits mutation safety details (reversibility, atomicity), error handling for non-existent IDs, and authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two efficient sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence establishes the operation, and the second delivers essential behavioral context (partial updates). Every word earns its place; no restructuring is needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description appropriately omits return value details. For a 4-parameter update tool with no annotations, it covers the critical behavioral trait (partial updates) but lacks completeness regarding error conditions (e.g., 404 scenarios) and prerequisites (memory existence), preventing a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate significantly. The description adds value by explaining that unspecified fields are left unchanged (implying the optional nature of content, metadata, and tags). However, it fails to define what these fields represent (e.g., what format metadata accepts) or that memory_id is the identifier required to locate the target.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action ('Update an existing memory') with a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes broadly from siblings like memory_create or memory_delete through the verb choice, it does not clarify nuanced differences versus tools like memory_merge or memory_patch (if one existed).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Only provided fields are updated' provides implicit guidance on when to use this tool (for partial updates) versus potentially replacing an entire memory. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance compared to siblings like memory_create_batch or memory_merge, and does not mention prerequisites like the memory needing to exist.
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?
No annotations provided. Description carries burden by disclosing auto-assigned tag 'memora/todos' and return type, but omits mutation safety, idempotency, or error handling details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses structured Args/Returns format that is front-loaded and scannable. Slightly verbose docstring style but every line provides necessary parameter documentation given the empty schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive given 5 parameters with no schema descriptions. Covers input semantics fully and notes key output behavior (auto-tagging). Lacks only sibling differentiation to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 5 parameters with semantics, valid values (open/closed, complete/not_planned), defaults, and category examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Create) and resource type (TODO/task memory). The 'TODO/task' qualifier distinguishes it from generic memory_create, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like memory_create_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage through Args documentation showing task-specific fields (status, priority, closed_reason), but lacks explicit guidance on when to select this over memory_create or memory_create_issue.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the auto-assigned tag 'memora/issues' in the Returns section. However, it lacks safety information (idempotency, error behavior, permissions) expected for a creation tool without annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The docstring structure (summary, Args, Returns) is efficient and front-loaded. Every section earns its place, though the Args list is necessarily verbose to cover the undocumented schema parameters. No redundant or filler text is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 6 parameters with zero schema coverage, the description successfully documents all inputs and adds the auto-tagging output behavior. While error cases aren't detailed, the presence of an output schema reduces the need for extensive return value explanation, making this sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The Args section fully compensates by documenting all 6 parameters with semantic meaning, enum values for status/severity/closed_reason, and concrete examples for component and category. This is exemplary compensation for schema deficiencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a new issue/bug memory') that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like memory_create (generic) and memory_create_todo (task-specific). The scope is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description doesn't explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state 'when not to use,' the specialized parameter list (severity, status, component) in the Args section implicitly guides the agent toward using this for structured bug tracking rather than generic memory creation.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the 120s rate limit cooldown, the two-phase processing approach (cross-reference scan followed by optional LLM analysis), and the complete return structure including `llm_available` flag. It does not clarify if the operation is read-only or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The rate limit warning appropriately appears at the end. It is slightly verbose but justifiably so given the need to document parameters and returns that the schema omits.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 optional parameters and existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It documents all inputs, explains the return dictionary structure (pairs, total_candidates, analyzed), and discloses rate limiting. It could be improved by noting whether results are cached or if the operation is idempotent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage (only titles like 'Min Similarity'), the description comprehensively documents all 4 parameters with semantic meaning, default values, and purpose (e.g., noting max_similarity is 'kept for backward compatibility'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds duplicate memory pairs using LLM-powered comparison, with specific mechanism details (cross-references, threshold scanning). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like `memory_merge` or `memory_semantic_search` beyond referencing the 'graph UI duplicate detection'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines the workflow (scan cross-refs → semantic comparison) and mentions the 120s rate limit, implying it should not be used for real-time operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus `memory_semantic_search` or prerequisites like 'use before memory_merge'.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the scope (scans all memories), mutative nature (replacing data URIs), rate limiting (300s cooldown), and dry-run capability. Missing details on failure handling, reversibility, or concurrency safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear summary sentence followed by implementation details and docstring-style Args/Returns sections. The rate limit warning is appropriately placed. Minor verbosity in the Args header is acceptable given the schema limitations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive migration with rate limiting) and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers the critical aspects: operation scope, parameter behavior, return value structure, and rate limits. It appropriately omits detailed return value schemas since an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (only title 'Dry Run'), so the description's Args section provides essential semantic meaning: 'If True, only report what would be migrated without making changes.' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (migrate), source (existing base64 images), destination (R2 storage), and mechanism (scans all memories, replaces data URIs). It effectively distinguishes this from generic upload operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tool `memory_upload_image`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the `dry_run` parameter explanation (test before migrating), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like `memory_upload_image`. It describes what happens but not the decision criteria for selecting 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return structure ('List of clusters with member IDs, sizes, and common tags') and algorithm differences, but omits safety profile (read-only vs destructive), performance characteristics, or scope of memory scan.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses structured docstring format with clear Args/Returns sections. Front-loaded purpose statement followed by compact parameter documentation. No redundant or filler text; every line conveys essential semantic or syntactic information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 optional parameters fully documented and an output schema present (reducing burden to describe return values), the description covers necessary ground. Minor gap: lacks explicit read-only assurance or performance notes expected for a computation-heavy clustering operation with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (only titles/types). Description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: min_cluster_size defines the threshold for cluster formation, min_score explains the similarity connection threshold, and algorithm details the two valid options with behavioral context for Louvain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Opens with specific verb-noun pair 'Detect clusters of related memories' that clearly distinguishes this grouping operation from sibling search/retrieval tools like memory_semantic_search or memory_related. Unambiguous scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage by explaining that Louvain 'uses embedding similarity for content-based clustering,' but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose connected_components vs louvain, or when to use clustering versus searching or listing memories.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It excellently documents bidirectional behavior (creates reverse link when True) and edge type semantics. However, it omits safety traits: idempotency (can links be duplicated?), error handling (behavior if IDs don't exist), and whether this is a destructive mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses efficient docstring structure (Args/Returns) with zero wasted words. Critical information (edge type options) is included out of necessity since schema lacks enums. Front-loaded with clear purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive given complexity: documents all parameters (compensating for empty schema), describes return dict structure, and edge type taxonomy. Minor gap: could reference memory_unlink as the inverse operation among many siblings, but sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters: from_id/to_id semantics, complete enum values for edge_type with behavioral definitions, and bidirectional logic with default value explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Opens with specific verb 'Create' and clear resource 'explicit typed link between two memories', precisely distinguishing it from siblings like memory_create (creates memories) and memory_unlink (removes links).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by requiring two memory IDs ('from_id', 'to_id') and stating 'between two memories', indicating it connects existing memories. However, no explicit comparison to siblings (e.g., memory_unlink for removal) or 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses critical operational constraints: the 60-second rate limit cooldown and the JSON output format. It also clarifies scope ('all memories'). Does not mention read-only safety or output schema details, but covers the essential behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose and format, second provides critical rate limit warning. Front-loaded with the primary action and appropriately terse given the simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Appropriate for a zero-parameter export tool. Since an output schema exists, the description correctly omits return value details. Covers the essential operational constraint (rate limiting) that would normally appear in annotations. Could be improved by stating the read-only nature, but sufficient for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, establishing baseline 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters, and the 'all memories' scope clarification compensates for the lack of filtering parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('all memories'), format ('JSON'), and use cases ('backup or transfer'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like memory_export_graph by specifying JSON format and full dataset scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides positive usage context ('for backup or transfer') implying archival/migration scenarios, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., distinguishing from memory_list for viewing or memory_export_graph for graph structure).
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully discloses the 120s rate limit cooldown and explains the optional LLM-powered analysis behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only status (implied by 'analyze' but not stated) or error handling for invalid periods.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The Args/Returns structure is appropriate for the technical content and 0% schema coverage. Every section earns its place: purpose statement, parameter documentation, return value semantics, and rate limit warning. Slightly verbose but justified by the lack of structured metadata elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on adding semantic meaning to return fields (explaining what 'consolidation_candidates' and 'open_items' represent) rather than just repeating types. It covers the rate limit constraint and parameter details that the schema omits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter documentation: period includes syntax examples ('7d', '1m', '1y') and include_llm_analysis explains the behavioral consequence ('use LLM to detect patterns'). This fully bridges the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('stored memories'), clearly indicating this is an analytical/reporting tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_search (retrieval), memory_create (mutation), and memory_stats (raw metrics) by focusing on 'actionable insights' and synthesis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies usage through detailed output specifications (activity_summary, open_items), it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar analytical siblings like memory_stats or memory_clusters. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are provided.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical 300s rate limit and global scope ('all memories'), indicating heavy operation. Could clarify if destructive or additive, and whether it blocks other memory operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. Purpose front-loaded, rate limit follows as secondary operational constraint. Perfect density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a parameterless tool with output schema available. Rate limit warning is essential for a global rebuild operation. Could mention safety implications (e.g., 'safe to run live') but covers the critical invocation constraint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters per schema, earning baseline score of 4. No parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Recompute' with clear resource 'cross-reference links' and scope 'all memories'. Distinct from sibling memory_link (manual) and memory_rebuild_embeddings (different data type).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies heavy usage via '300s cooldown' rate limit warning, but lacks explicit guidance on when to invoke (e.g., 'run after bulk imports' or 'use instead of manual linking when...'). No comparison to memory_link or memory_related.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the critical rate limiting behavior (300s cooldown) and batch scope (all memories). Could improve by mentioning if the operation is blocking or safe to run during active usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second states critical constraint. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a parameterless utility function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema (no inputs) and existence of an output schema, the description covers essential operational context. The rate limit disclosure is crucial for a resource-intensive batch operation. Minor gap: doesn't clarify if existing embeddings remain available during recomputation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4. No parameter documentation is required, and the description correctly focuses on operational behavior rather than inventing non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Recompute embeddings') and scope ('for all memories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_rebuild_crossrefs or memory_semantic_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The rate limit warning ('300s cooldown') provides implicit guidance about usage frequency, but lacks explicit 'when to use' triggers or comparison to alternative approaches like incremental updates.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and succeeds well. It explains the RRF algorithm, the mathematical relationship between semantic/keyword weights (1 - semantic_weight), date format variations ('7d', '1m'), tag logic (OR/AND/NOT), and return structure. Could improve by mentioning error conditions or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections. Front-loaded with core purpose. While lengthy due to inline parameter documentation, this is necessary given zero schema coverage. No redundant or wasted sentences given the complexity constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (hybrid algorithm, 10 parameters) and zero schema/annotation support, the description is remarkably complete. It covers algorithm mechanics, all parameter semantics with examples, default behaviors, and return value structure. Nothing critical is missing for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to fully compensate. The Args section provides comprehensive semantics for all 10 parameters: ranges (0-1), formats (ISO or relative dates), logic (OR/AND/NOT), and defaults (0.6, 10, 0.0). This fully addresses the schema documentation gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a precise verb ('Perform') and clearly defines the resource ('hybrid search combining keyword (FTS) and semantic (vector) search'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool memory_semantic_search by explicitly stating it merges both methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the benefit ('providing better results than either method alone'), implying when to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over memory_semantic_search or other siblings. No 'when-not' or explicit alternative recommendations are provided.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behaviors: it warns that source will be deleted (destructive side effect), notes that target will be updated, and specifies that content and metadata are preserved. It also outlines the return value. Missing only details on reversibility or atomicity guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is optimally structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core operation, followed by clarifications, then structured Args and Returns sections. No redundant or wasted language; every sentence adds value beyond the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It documents the operation, all parameters, merge strategies, and return summary. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions (e.g., non-existent IDs) or permission requirements, but sufficient for agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The description fully compensates by detailing all three parameters: source_id and target_id include their fate (deleted/updated), while merge_strategy explains the three enum values and notes the default ('append'). Excellent semantic coverage where the schema provides none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Merge source memory into target, then delete source,' providing a specific verb (merge), resource (memory), and distinguishing this composite operation from siblings like memory_update or memory_delete. It clearly communicates the dual nature of the operation (merge + delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (combining two memories into one), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over memory_update or memory_delete, nor does it suggest workflows (e.g., using this after memory_find_duplicates). Usage is clear but not contextualized against alternatives.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses key behaviors: the change is 'permanent and cumulative,' it affects 'importance-sorted searches,' and it returns either the updated memory or an error if not found. It does not specify auth requirements or rate limits, preventing 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. While the docstring format is slightly more verbose than a single paragraph, every sentence adds value, including the specific value examples for boost_amount and the explicit error condition in the Returns clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (two simple parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation's side effects (permanent ranking change) and parameter semantics sufficiently. It could be improved by clarifying the relationship to the memory_hybrid_search or memory_semantic_search siblings mentioned in the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by providing semantic meaning for both parameters. It explains memory_id references the target memory, defines boost_amount as adding to 'base importance,' provides the default value (0.5), and offers qualitative guidance on common values (0.25 small, 1.0 large) that the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific action ('Boost a memory's importance score') and clarifies the mechanism ('manually increase... to make it rank higher in importance-sorted searches'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from general-purpose siblings like memory_update by specifying it targets the importance ranking system specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by noting this is a 'manual' operation affecting search ranking, and explains that the effect is 'permanent and cumulative.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this with memory_update or indicate when to prefer boosting over other modification methods.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: the 80-character content truncation, the minimal field selection rationale (context reduction), and the read-only browsing nature. It could be improved by mentioning pagination defaults or empty result behavior, but the truncation detail is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return value specifics, usage context, and a necessary Args section. Given the complete lack of schema documentation, the Args section is essential and efficiently formatted without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 optional parameters supporting complex filtering (date ranges, boolean tag logic, metadata), the description adequately covers the filtering semantics. Since an output schema exists (per context signals), the brief enumeration of returned fields is sufficient. It appropriately focuses on the tag logic nuances which are the most complex aspect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting all 9 parameters with precise semantics. It adds critical details absent from the schema: relative date formats ('7d', '1m', '1y'), boolean logic explanations for tag filters (OR/AND/NOT), and explicit default values (unlimited, 0).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool 'List memories in compact format' and distinguishes itself from sibling `memory_list` by emphasizing 'reduce context usage' and specifying the exact returned fields (id, preview, tags, created_at). The 80-character preview limit is also specified, clarifying the compact nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context ('useful for browsing memories without loading full content and metadata'), helping the agent understand when to use this over a full-fetch alternative. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative (e.g., 'use memory_list instead for full content').
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses rate limiting and the behavioral differences between strategies (e.g., 'replace' clears all first). Could mention atomicity or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded purpose statement followed by critical constraint (rate limit), then structured Args section. No redundant text; every sentence provides necessary information given the schema deficiencies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0% schema coverage and complex nested input structure, the description adequately documents parameters and behavioral constraints. Output schema exists so return values need not be described; only missing potential error conditions or validation rules.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section fully compensates by detailing 'data' structure (content, metadata, tags, created_at) and explaining each strategy option's semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb 'Import' with resource 'memories' and format 'JSON', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_export, memory_create, or memory_merge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context through the strategy options (replace/merge/append) and rate limit warning (60s cooldown), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like memory_create_batch.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the external system interaction ('R2 storage'), the side effect (uploading file), and the return structure ('Dictionary with r2_url'). It does not cover idempotency or failure modes, but covers the primary behavioral traits adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The docstring format is well-structured with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized given the zero schema coverage, though the Returns section repeats information available in the output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all inputs semantically, explains the output structure, and contextualizes the tool within the memory system ('memory metadata'). No critical gaps remain for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section compensates completely by providing semantic meaning for all four parameters: file_path is 'Absolute path,' memory_id explains 'organizing in R2,' image_index clarifies 'Index of image within the memory,' and caption notes it is 'Optional.'
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific action ('Upload') and target ('image file directly to R2 storage'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_migrate_images or memory_create. It precisely identifies the operation and destination resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool by stating the return value 'can be used in memory metadata,' which clarifies its role in the memory workflow. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to use memory_migrate_images instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and excels by listing three critical behavioral exclusions (no graph visibility, no duplicate detection, no embeddings/cross-references) and noting the auto-assigned tag 'memora/sections' that agents can expect in the output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a clean, scannable structure with a purpose statement, bullet points for behavioral traits, and labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence provides value; no repetition of schema structure or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return value (noting the auto-assigned tag) without over-explaining. It comprehensively covers the tool's unique behavior, parameters, and hierarchical positioning relative to the memory system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with semantic meaning ('Title/description', 'Parent section name') and concrete examples for section ('Architecture', 'API') and subsection ('endpoints/auth').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('section/subsection header memory'), and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like memory_create by defining these as organizational placeholders with specific exclusionary traits (NOT visible in graph, NOT in duplicate detection).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (creating organizational structure) through the negative constraints that differentiate it from regular memories. However, it stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives like memory_create or stating 'use this instead of X when organizing hierarchically.'
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
How to claim the server?
If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.
However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
"maintainers": [
"your-github-username"
]
}Then, authenticate using GitHub.
Browse examples.
How to make a release?
A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:
- Claim the server if you haven't already.
- Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
- Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.
This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.
How to add a LICENSE?
Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.
Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
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.
Latest Blog Posts
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/agentic-box/memora'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server