Creates a structured architecture memory entry to map component relationships and responsibilities.
Create an architecture memory for component structure mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owns | No | ||
| tags | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| details | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| component | Yes | ||
| statement | Yes | ||
| dependencies | No | ||
| source_paths | No | ||
| responsibility | Yes | ||
| communicates_with | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It implies a write operation (create), which is somewhat transparent, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a moderate level of transparency.
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 extremely concise and to the point, containing only the essential information about the tool's purpose. There is no fluff or redundant wording, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotation coverage), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what an 'architecture memory' is, how to fill the required fields, what the output will be, or how this fits into the broader context. A minimal viable description would need to provide at least basic parameter guidance.
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 11 parameters, yet the description provides no explanation of what any parameter means or how they relate to 'component structure mapping.' Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds no value for understanding the parameters, leaving users to infer their purpose from names alone.
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 action (create) and the resource (architecture memory), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like memory_create_tool or gotcha_create, so ambiguity remains about when to prefer this specific 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention criteria for selecting this tool over siblings, nor does it provide any usage context beyond the basic creation action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.