McuBuddy

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

write_project_memory

Write canonical project memory into a confirmed target root, updating or adding structured content for embedded firmware debugging evidence.

Instructions

Write canonical memory inside a confirmed target project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target_root": "<target_root>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write_project_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`content`	Yes
`target_root`	Yes
`update_existing`	No
`allow_mcubuddy_target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.2Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Write canonical memory' without mentioning side effects, the need for confirmation (despite a 'confirm' parameter), whether it overwrites existing content, or any safety implications. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple boolean flags.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of the flags, the expected content format, the target project confirmation process, or any side effects. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the given information.

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 information about parameters. The meaning of 'target_root', 'content', 'confirm', 'update_existing', and 'allow_mcubuddy_target' is entirely left to the schema titles, which are opaque. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Write') on a specific resource ('canonical memory') within a target project. It distinguishes from the sibling 'inspect_project_memory' tool by indicating it is a write operation, though the term 'canonical memory' is somewhat vague.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the read counterpart 'inspect_project_memory' or any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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