Summarize a session by saving short-term task notes to Postgres memory, enabling later retrieval and continuity.
Store a compact short-term session/task summary in Postgres memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes | ||
| scope | No | user | |
| subject | No | ||
| ttl_days | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| source_uri | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no behavioral annotations (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states that it 'stores' a summary, but does not explain side effects, whether it overwrites existing summaries for the same session_id, how ttl_days affects retention, or any requirements. This is minimal and insufficient for safe usage.
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 concise sentence with no fluff, which is structurally efficient. However, it is so short that it omits essential details, but conciseness itself is not penalized for being brief; it's penalized for being under-specified in other dimensions. This dimension scores well on structure.
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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no behavioral annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral implications. Even though an output schema exists, the lack of input guidance makes it inadequate for an agent to call correctly.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter explanations. While parameter names like 'session_id' and 'notes' are self-explanatory, others like 'scope', 'subject', 'ttl_days', and 'source_uri' are ambiguous (e.g., what does ttl_days=0 mean? what are valid scope values?). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('compact short-term session/task summary in Postgres memory'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling memory tools like gateway_memory_write, which also stores memory. The name 'summarize_session' hints at session-specific usage, but the description doesn't explicitly distinguish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gateway_memory_write or gateway_memory_search. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.