Retrieve a specific file from a project's memory bank to access stored project context and documentation.
Read a memory bank file for a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileName | Yes | The name of the file | |
| projectName | Yes | The name of the project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action 'Read' without revealing any side effects, error handling, prerequisites, or return format. It offers no additional behavioral context beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the purpose without any waste. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention what the return value looks like, any potential errors (e.g., missing file or project), or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without critical context needed to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
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% with both parameters clearly named in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond the schema's basic descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameter semantics.
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 a specific verb ('Read') and a resource ('memory bank file') scoped to a project. It unambiguously distinguishes from siblings like list_projects, list_project_files, memory_bank_write, and memory_bank_update, which have different purposes.
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 implies usage for reading file content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or when a sibling would be more appropriate, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.