Create a new memory bank file for a project by specifying the project name, file name, and content, enabling structured knowledge storage.
Create a new memory bank file for a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The content of the file | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create', with no mention of whether an existing file would be overwritten, permissions needed, or error scenarios. It does not say what happens if the project doesn't exist or if there are constraints. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It earns a high conciseness score, though it could have been slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but somewhat sufficient given the schema covers all params. However, it lacks details about failure modes, idempotency, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent might need more context to handle edge cases correctly.
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 each parameter having a basic description ('The content of the file', etc.). However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description does not 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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new memory bank file'), and specifies it's for a specific project. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_bank_update by using 'new', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for creating new files only, nor does it reference update/read tools. An agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.