Graphiti-Memory MCP Server

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. It states the tool adds to a knowledge graph, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting), rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero 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.

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

The description is concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and primary role. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details, though the second sentence could be more informative about alternatives or context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity as a write operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., how additions affect the graph), usage scenarios, or error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Add an episode/memory to the knowledge graph' with a specific verb ('add') and resource ('episode/memory'), and distinguishes it from siblings by calling it 'the primary way to add information.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other write operations like 'clear_graph' or 'delete_episode' beyond being 'primary.'

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

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

The description provides minimal guidance, stating only that this is 'the primary way to add information,' which implies usage but doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives like 'clear_graph' or 'delete_episode,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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