Record a labeled checkpoint with scope and summary to mark an append-only memory state for later retrieval and integrity checks.
memory_checkpoint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| summary | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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, and it discloses nothing. It is unclear whether a checkpoint mutates state, requires persistence, is reversible, or returns anything.
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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—there is no content to be concise about. Front-loading is moot when nothing is conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate, omitting purpose, usage, behavior, and every parameter's meaning.
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?
Three parameters (label, scope, summary) exist at 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds zero meaning about their purpose, format, interactions, or defaults. This is the worst case the rubric anticipates.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (memory_write, memory_search, memory_get, memory_verify) it replaces. An agent is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.