Memory Box 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. 'Save a memory' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this creates new or overwrites existing memories, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with a single sentence: 'Save a memory to Memory Box'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose in stating the core action.

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 (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'memory', how saving interacts with the system, what happens on success/failure, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a write operation with rich input structure, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't enhance understanding of semantics. However, with comprehensive schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Save a memory to Memory Box' clearly states the action (save) and resource (memory to Memory Box), but it's quite generic. It doesn't specify what a 'memory' is in this context or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_memory' or 'create_bucket'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. With siblings like 'update_memory', 'create_bucket', and 'search_memories', the description offers no context on prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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