Persist append-only memory records and confirm each write after append, fsync, byte-exact read-back, and hash-chain validation to detect corruption.
memory_write
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| scope | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| supersedes | No | ||
| client_op_id | 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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether the write is durable, upserting, idempotent, permission-gated, or what supersedes/client_op_id imply. Nothing about mutation semantics is communicated.
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?
It is short, but only because it is under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded intent to speak of. A bare identifier is not a structured description.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis for correct invocation.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanation in the description. Nested objects (fields, source) and ambiguous strings (kind, scope, supersedes, client_op_id) are entirely undocumented, so an agent cannot populate them correctly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative among the four sibling tools. The agent must infer everything about selection 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.