Identify active stored facts that potentially contradict each other. Optionally filter by category to detect conflicting memory records.
Find active facts that potentially contradict each other.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category filter. |
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. 'Find' implies a read-only operation but this is never asserted, and there is no disclosure of what 'potentially contradict' means operationally, whether results are pairs or a list, cost, or whether it is expensive over large stores.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a one-parameter tool. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it leaves the core concept of 'potentially contradict' undefined. For a detection tool whose value depends on how conflicts are judged, this is a significant gap.
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% and the single parameter is documented as an optional category filter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a concrete verb (find) and resource (active facts that potentially contradict each other), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like chronomem_recall, which also retrieves facts, so an agent has no explicit signal for choosing this over the plain retrieval tool.
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 on when to use this versus chronomem_recall or chronomem_timeline, and no exclusions. The word 'potentially' hints at a heuristic check rather than an exhaustive report, but that nuance is never stated as a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.