ClawSouls MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying what information is returned (files, sizes, dates, git status) and that it shows 'current status'—implying real-time data without modification. No contradictions with annotations exist, and the description enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('show current status') and lists all key details without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, read-only operation) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it returns. It could be more complete by mentioning output format or error handling, but for a status-checking tool with good annotations, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'memory_dir' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or path examples. However, with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('show current status') and resource ('agent memory files'), with explicit details about what information is included ('list files, sizes, last modified dates, and git status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_detail, memory_search, and memory_sync by focusing on status overview rather than detailed inspection, searching, or synchronization.

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?

The description implies usage for checking memory file status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_detail (for detailed file info) or memory_search (for finding specific content). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open to interpretation.

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