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 only states the action ('Search') without detailing aspects like permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about 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.

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, direct sentence: 'Search for facts (relationships) in the knowledge graph.' Every word contributes to the purpose, with no wasted information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and return values, which are crucial for an agent to operate effectively. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in overall context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the query is processed or what 'facts' entail. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Search for facts (relationships) in the knowledge graph.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('facts (relationships)'), and context ('knowledge graph'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_memory_nodes' (which searches nodes rather than relationships), leaving room for ambiguity.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_memory_nodes' or clarify scenarios where searching facts is preferred over other operations. This lack of context leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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