Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_memoriesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states 'semantic search' and omits critical behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, prerequisites (like user_id), performance implications, or read-only status.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, concise sentence that starts with the action verb and resource, wasting no words. It is optimally structured for quick comprehension.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  With no output schema, the description should explain return values and search behavior, but it does not. It also lacks details on default limit, user_id handling, and ranking semantics, making it incomplete for a search tool.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The schema includes descriptions for all three parameters (query, limit, user_id), providing 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

  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 clearly states the tool performs a semantic search over memories, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memories by highlighting 'semantic search', though it could more explicitly contrast with them.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_memories or add_memory. The description only defines what it does, leaving the agent without directional context for selection.

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

• add_memoryB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states that it stores a memory, but doesn't clarify whether it overwrites, appends, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. The word 'new' implies no overwriting but leaves other behaviors undisclosed.

  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 sentence with no filler, but it is almost too terse, offering minimal substance. It is concise and front-loaded, more efficient than verbose, though it trades away helpful context.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool has a complete schema and no output schema, the description covers only the basic action. It lacks usage context and behavioral caveats, but the schema mitigates some gaps. Overall, it is a minimally viable description for a straightforward create operation, but leaves room for improvement.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (content, user_id, metadata), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description uses the specific verb 'Store' targeting 'a new memory in Mem0', clearly distinguishing this write operation from sibling tools (search_memories, get_memories, delete_memory). The phrase 'new memory' confirms an insert action, leaving no ambiguity about its core function.

  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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for creating memories, while search/get/delete are for reading/removing, nor does it note any prerequisites or edge cases like duplicate handling.

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

• delete_memoryB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning permanence, error behavior for nonexistent IDs, permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a delete operation.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word contributes meaning, with zero waste.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about deletion behavior (e.g., success criteria, error cases). It is not misleading but leaves important behavioral context unspecified.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (memory_id) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('a specific memory') with a clear identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_memory (create), search_memories (query), and get_memories (retrieve).

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit requirement of a memory ID. The description implies usage but offers no explicit context.

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

• get_memoriesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning pagination, default limits, memory volume, ordering, or response format. For a retrieval tool that may return large datasets, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single concise sentence with clear verb-object structure. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  The tool is simple with two optional parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is relatively thin. It lacks context about return format, behavior with large result sets, or how limit interacts with 'all memories'. Additional behavioral notes would improve completeness.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema already describes both parameters (limit and user_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the details.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all memories for a user'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like search_memories (focused retrieval) and add/delete memory operations. The word 'all' explicitly communicates the bulk scope.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'all memories' implies a bulk retrieval use case, but the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over search_memories or other alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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