repo-memory-mcp

by andyast

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools for storing memories (store_memory, propose_memory, remember_project_note, store_decision) and retrieving memories (get_memory, get_memory_with_evidence, search_project_memory, list_memories) have overlapping purposes. Compatibility tools like 'prefer store_memory' add confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is mostly snake_case with verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies: 'remember_project_note' vs 'store_memory', 'checkpoint_task' vs 'active_checkpoints', and generic 'manage_memory'. The pattern is not fully uniform.
Tool Count2/5
30 tools is quite high for a repo memory system. Many are compatibility wrappers or redundant (e.g., delete_memory vs manage_memory). The core functionality could be covered with fewer tools, making the count feel bloated.
Completeness3/5
Covers CRUD for memories, search, evidence linking, and checkpoints, but lacks an artifact listing tool. Some lifecycle operations are duplicated. There are notable gaps, but core workflows are supported.
Average 3.1/5 across 30 of 30 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'store' without addressing idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Overly terse; the single sentence plus bracket note is minimal but omits essential details. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description fails to provide adequate context for correct invocation. Missing details on parameter semantics, return values, and behavioral implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 8 parameters. It does not explain 'claim', 'rationale', 'confidence', 'files', 'symbols', etc.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Store a repo-scoped engineering decision' which is clear verb+resource, but lacks specifics about what distinguishes a decision from other memories. The compatibility note undermines clarity by suggesting preference for another tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises 'Prefer store_memory with type=decision' which is strong usage guidance, though does not elaborate further on when to use or avoid this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update,' implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects, required permissions, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, achieving brevity, but it is overly terse and lacks necessary details. It sacrifices informativeness for conciseness, resulting in a borderline adequate score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool that updates lifecycle status with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the effect of different status values, the confidence parameter, or the behavior after update.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any parameter. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and enum values, which is inadequate for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Update' and resource 'memory lifecycle status', clearly stating the tool's action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'verify_memory' or 'supersede_memory' that may also modify status, so slightly lacks distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is silent on behavioral aspects beyond the basic action. With no annotations, critical traits like idempotency, reversibility, or required permissions are absent. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency forces the agent to rely on assumptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 8 words, leaving no waste. However, it may be overly terse given the missing parameter and behavior details, earning a high but not perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain the outcome (e.g., whether it returns the link) or how to handle errors, leaving an agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter details. Terms like 'typed relationship' vaguely hint at the 'relation' parameter but do not clarify the format, allowed values, or meaning of 'fromId'/'toId'. This forces the agent to guess, severely undermining usability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'create' and the object 'typed relationship between two memories', providing a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'link_memory_evidence' by focusing on memory-to-memory links, it does not explicitly contrast with other relationship tools, keeping it slightly below a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'link_memory_evidence' or other relation-creating tools. An agent has no guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving it to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states listing with filters. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (via limit/offset), default ordering, whether results are truncated, or any side effects. The tool is likely non-destructive, but this is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks substantive information. While brevity is good, it is under-specified, resulting in a mediocre score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, or how filters interact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'optional filters' without explaining any of the six parameters (cwd, tags, limit, types, offset, statuses). The description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'project memories', and mentions optional filters, which gives a basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'search_project_memory', which likely has similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'search_project_memory' or 'get_memory'. It only says 'with optional filters' but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a readable briefing with specific content types, but does not mention side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with 'Start here', but it omits critical parameter information, making it slightly under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage and only vaguely describes the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description gives no information about any of the 4 parameters (cwd, task, limit, format). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's for non-trivial tasks and returns a task-specific context briefing with relevant memories, decisions, etc. It provides a specific verb-resource combination and implies an entry point, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only says 'Start here for non-trivial tasks', which is vague. No guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what state changes occur to the old memory (e.g., status update), or any side effects on related data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this tool requires more context about preconditions, effects, and return values. The current description is too sparse for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'old' and 'new' memories. It does not explain the format of 'oldId'/'newId', the role of 'cwd', or any constraints (e.g., IDs must exist).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('supersede') on a specific resource ('memory'), with a clear effect ('mark old memory superseded by newer'). However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'link_memories' or 'update_memory_status' beyond the verb choice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any prerequisites (e.g., both memories must exist, old memory must be active). The agent receives no hints on context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returned data ('provenance metadata and linked evidence') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is concise, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format to list parameters or usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain error handling (e.g., id not found), data size limits, or whether the response is a full object or truncated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter usage. It only addresses the 'id' parameter implicitly ('by id') and completely omits the 'cwd' parameter, leaving its purpose and context unknown.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('memory'), the unique identifier ('by id'), and additional details ('provenance metadata and linked evidence'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'list_memories' and 'get_memory_with_evidence'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the 28 sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred or should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that config and agent instructions are created, but does not mention potential destructive actions (e.g., overwrite parameter could delete existing config), side effects (e.g., modifying .gitignore), or what happens if run repeatedly. Lacks important behavioral warnings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word adds value, with no repetition or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or the effect of each boolean parameter. Sibling tools add context but are not leveraged to describe this tool's unique role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'optional bootstrap memory/hooks,' which partially explains installGitHooks and maybe seed, but does not clarify cwd, overwrite, or updateGitignore. The mapping between description and parameters is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool initializes repo-memory-mcp, creates config, agent instructions, and optional memory/hooks. It names the primary resource (repo) and action (initialize), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like install_git_hooks, which may overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not specify prerequisites (e.g., must be in a git repo) or when it should be used (e.g., only for first-time setup). No when-not-to-use or sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions paging (already in schema) but omits what happens if id is invalid, authentication needs, or return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence without redundancy. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and high schema description coverage, the description fails to provide essential context about return values, error handling, or proper parameter usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain each parameter's meaning. It only references id, offset, and limit broadly, leaving 'cwd' and the exact purpose of parameters unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (retrieve), resource (artifact), and includes paging details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_memory and store_artifact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual hints. The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions 'best-effort' but does not detail side effects, permissions needed, what hooks are installed, or consequences. Lacks transparency for a potentially invasive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence is concise, but it lacks structural elements like parameter hints or usage examples. It is minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'best-effort' means, what hooks are installed, or how parameters control the behavior. Incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the two parameters (cwd, command). The agent has no guidance on how to use them effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (install git hooks) and the purpose (revalidate memory after checkout/merge/rewrite). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which directly involve git hooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (after checkout/merge/rewrite) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No comparison to siblings like revalidate_memories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not prove truth, but it does not explain what 'flagging' entails, whether it modifies memories, or what the return format is. Only minimal caveat is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary action and include a critical caveat. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity, the description leaves many questions unanswered: how are results returned, what does 'flag' mean technically, what is the exact role of git refs, and how does this interact with the memory system. The presence of many sibling tools increases the need for clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter (fromSha, toSha, cwd). No meaning is added beyond the raw schema; the agent must guess parameter purposes from the tool name and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans git diff staleness between two refs and flags affected memories for human review, with the explicit caveat that it does not prove truth. This distinguishes it from similar tools like verify_memory or memory_status by specifying the action (scan, flag) and the resource (memories) along with the context of git diff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like verify_memory, review_memories, or list_memories. The caveat 'for human review' implies it is a non-automated step, but no alternatives or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search algorithm (Exact/BM25 first) and a conditional re-check behavior ('Re-check code memories if status is not active'). However, it does not clarify what 'status' refers to, nor does it mention side effects, rate limits, or data persistence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose 'Search current repo memory.' Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of parameters, the return format, or the conditions for the re-check behavior. A user/agent cannot determine how to properly invoke this tool without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter context. It mentions 'status' implicitly but does not explain the four parameters (cwd, limit, query, statuses) or their allowed values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches 'current repo memory' and mentions the search method (Exact/BM25 first) and a conditional behavior (re-checking code memories if status is not active). It distinguishes from siblings like list_memories or search_evidence, but could be more specific about what 'current repo memory' encompasses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_memory, list_memories, or search_evidence. The description implies it's for searching, but lacks context or exclusion criteria to help an agent decide between similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only lists actions without discussing side effects, permissions, or consequences of each action, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details, especially for a tool with 11 parameters. It is front-loaded but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count and lack of output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain parameter dependencies for each action or provide enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for 11 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the bare action list, failing to clarify the roles of id, toId, fromId, oldId, newId, reason, status, relation, and confidence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Manage memory lifecycle' and lists the specific actions (verify, mark, delete, link, supersede), distinguishing it from individual lifecycle tools by saying 'Prefer this over individual lifecycle tools.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using this tool over individual lifecycle tools, providing clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not specify situations where the individual tools might be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, required permissions, or side effects. The term 'Show' suggests read-only, but this is implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks important context. It does not clarify what 'memory counts' entails (e.g., per category) or define 'stale/needs-revalidation', leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'cwd' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain it. Agents must infer its purpose without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows memory counts and stale/needs-revalidation memories for the current repo. It uses a specific verb 'Show' and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_memories or get_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is for checking counts and stale items, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like review_memories or list_memories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Detect', suggesting read-only, but fails to mention what happens if not in a repo, error handling, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low complexity (1 optional param), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value or behavior in edge cases like missing repo.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the parameter 'cwd'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent with only the parameter name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Detect' and the resource 'current repo/project identity', and specifies the method 'from cwd'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly memory management, making this unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when repo identity is needed from cwd, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that stdout/stderr are stored and memory is created, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., command may modify files), authentication needs, or that it persists data externally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy or fluff. Could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves many gaps. The tool's return value, error handling, and memory behavior are not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description does not explain any parameters. 'command' is described only as 'Run a command' without specifying it is an array or what cwd, title, remember do. No parameter details are added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool runs a command and persists its output as an artifact and memory. It distinguishes from sibling memory tools by including command execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: when you need to run a command and store its output as a memory artifact. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the description suggests the primary use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state side-effect-free or required permissions. With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context beyond purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb, no unnecessary words. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on output format, what 'suggested review commands' are, and whether the operation has side effects. Given no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (cwd, limit). Users are left to infer their purpose from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists stale and needs-revalidation memories, using specific verb 'List' and qualifier 'stale and needs-revalidation', distinguishing it from siblings like list_memories and revalidate_memories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use or suggest related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the default active status and the ability to set to proposed, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting, source-backing semantics) and permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (status default) efficiently. Front-loaded with action and scope, but could be slightly improved by adding parameter hints without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 13 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return value, parameter details (e.g., 'claim', 'tags'), and usage context, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for most parameters (only hints at 'status'). The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving agents to guess parameter roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Store a repo-scoped source-backed memory' with specific use cases (durable decisions, gotchas, etc.). It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like propose_memory or store_decision, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a list of suitable use cases but does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving room for confusion among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, permissions required, rate limits, or any side effects. Only the basic purpose is stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence plus a short phrase. It front-loads the purpose, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter notes without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation. It omits details on search scope, result format, and filtering logic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The three parameters (cwd, limit, query) are unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on their usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search raw source artifacts/evidence' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search tools like 'search_project_memory' by focusing on raw evidence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Use before trusting or creating claims' gives clear contextual guidance on when to apply the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'lightweight' (implying low overhead) and 'store' (write operation) but lacks details on idempotency, permissions, overwrite behavior, or whether a single checkpoint per task exists. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two efficient sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 13 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine parameter meanings, return values, or error conditions, making it insufficient for complex usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no meaning to any of the 13 parameters. It only provides overall purpose, leaving agents to guess parameter roles, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stores lightweight crash/context recovery state for multi-step coding tasks, using a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('state'). It distinguishes from sibling memory tools by emphasizing lightweight checkpointing for recovery, not general memory storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to call the tool ('after meaningful steps or before risky/long operations'), implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like store_memory, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool shows, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The agent cannot infer that this is a safe, non-destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. No words are wasted, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters do, what the output format looks like, or any behavioral traits. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (cwd and limit) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to add any meaning about their purpose, format, or required values. The agent has no guidance on how to supply these parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show compact recent repo-memory events, artifacts, and memories.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies a distinct resource type, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'store_memory' or 'list_memories' 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use near task end to decide whether any durable proposed memories are worth creating.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions storing (mutation) and returning a preview and ID, but fails to disclose other behaviors such as overwrite semantics, size limits, authorization requirements, or side effects. Important behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and examples, the second adds return information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage scenarios for each parameter, and behavioral constraints. The agent cannot fully understand how to use this tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It never explains the meaning or usage of the six parameters (cwd, body, type, title, eventId, metadata). Some names are self-explanatory, but critical details like format, constraints, and optionality are absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Store'), the resource ('large artifact'), and provides concrete examples (logs, command output, diffs, transcripts). It also mentions the return values (preview and stable ID). This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like store_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for storing large text-based outputs, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. While the examples help, there is no direct comparison to sibling tools like store_memory or get_artifact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool changes memory state to active and verified, indicating a mutation. However, it omits side effects, authorization needs, or whether verification involves comparison with HEAD. Minimal but acceptable at a basic level.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a clear prefix note. Every word adds value, no repetition of schema or annotations. Highly efficient for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks parameter details, return value description, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for parameters, yet the description provides no explanation of id, cwd, or confidence. This fails to compensate for missing schema metadata, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool marks a memory as active and verified against current HEAD, distinguishing it from memory status updates. However, the phrase 'against current HEAD' could be more explicit about the verification process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises preferring manage_memory action=verify, providing a clear alternative. This helps an agent decide when to use this tool vs. another, though it does not explain the context for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose safety traits (e.g., non-destructive, no side effects). The description is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and purpose. However, it could benefit from a brief note on parameters without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits any details about parameters, return format, or behavior beyond the basic action. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions for parameters). The description does not explain the 'cwd' or 'limit' parameters at all, leaving their purpose unclear despite the schema providing types and constraints. The description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists active checkpoint memories and the purpose is to resume interrupted multi-step tasks. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like 'checkpoint_task' (create) and 'list_memories' (general memories).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for resuming interrupted tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_memories'). No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states it attaches evidence (a write operation) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or whether evidence is appended/overwritten. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, well-structured sentence. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb 'attach' and key resources.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits key context such as the relation between artifact and memory, behavior when memoryId is invalid, and return value format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds meaning for 'artifactId' (source artifact) and 'quote' (optional quote) but does not explain 'memoryId', 'relation', or 'cwd'. With 0% schema description coverage, more context is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'attach' and resources: source artifact and optional quote to existing memory claim. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like link_memories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage by stating what it does, but provides no explicit context on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., link_memories) nor any prerequisites or suggestions for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions proposing memories but does not clarify if the tool has side effects (e.g., auto-storing memories) or if it triggers the final response. Lacks disclosure of behavioral traits beyond the described actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loads the action. Second sentence is somewhat long but still efficient. No wasted words, though could be more structured for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite clear purpose, the description fails to document parameters and return behavior. For a tool with 6 parameters including nested objects, this leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 6 parameters with 0% coverage in description. Description does not explain any parameter (e.g., cwd, outcome, testsRun, filesChanged, proposedMemories). The only hint is about memories in the description, but details are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: call before final response on non-trivial tasks, summarize work, and propose durable memories. It distinguishes from siblings like propose_memory by being specifically for task finalization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use (non-trivial tasks) and what to propose (decisions, root causes, etc.) and what to avoid (secrets, personal data). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies read operation but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on missing id. Adequate but relies on default safety assumptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff. Every word contributes to purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description must explain return value. It mentions linked elements but lacks structure details or error behavior. Functional but leaves gaps for complex data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (0/2 param descriptions). Description only clarifies 'id' as identifier but does not explain 'cwd' parameter or its optionality. Necessary context missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states retrieving a single memory with linked evidence (source artifacts, quotes, provenance). Verb 'get' and resource 'memory' are explicit. Distinguishes from sibling 'get_memory' and other evidence tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies when to use (need memory with evidence) but no explicit when-not or alternatives. With many sibling tools, guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context ('repo-scoped', 'source-backed'), but does not disclose safety implications (e.g., mutability, permissions, or side effects). Neutral and adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two clauses in a single sentence. The compatibility warning is front-loaded, and every word serves a purpose. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. The agent has no understanding of parameter semantics, return values, or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent with no guidance on fields like 'tags', 'files', or 'confidence'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Store') and resource ('repo-scoped source-backed memory note'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it's a compatibility alias for 'store_memory'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Prefer store_memory', indicating this tool is only for backward compatibility and that the agent should use the alternative when possible. This provides clear when-to-use vs when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the audit trail behavior, which adds context beyond the basic delete action. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like irreversibility, permission requirements, or effects on linked data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence gives usage guidance, the second defines function. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and three parameters (one required), the description adequately states the tool's purpose and usage guidance. However, it fails to explain parameter semantics, leaving a critical gap for proper invocation. The mention of audit trail adds some completeness, but parameter details are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters (id, cwd, reason). An agent cannot determine the meaning or proper values for cwd and reason from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete one memory with audit trail,' specifying the verb (delete) and resource (memory). It distinguishes from the sibling 'manage_memory' by advising preference to 'manage_memory action=delete,' making the unique purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Prefer manage_memory action=delete,' providing direct guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. This helps the agent decide which tool to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that memories are proposed for human review, not immediately stored, and warns against storing sensitive data. Could mention the review process, but transparent enough given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage, and constraints. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite clear purpose, the description omits return values, post-proposal workflow, and parameter details. For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters, the description provides no parameter-specific details. The general guidance does not compensate for the lack of parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Propose a repo memory for later human review.' It specifies when to use it (end of non-trivial tasks with durable lessons) and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing proposal vs. direct storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use (non-trivial tasks, specific lesson types) and when not (secrets, trivial churn). Also gives preference for 1-3 high-signal proposals, offering clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![repo-memory-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/andyast/repo-memory-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/andyast/repo-memory-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![repo-memory-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/andyast/repo-memory-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/andyast/repo-memory-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/andyast/repo-memory-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server