Creates an invariant memory entry that persists across sessions, requiring a verification method and condition to define.
Create an invariant memory. Requires verificationMethod and condition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| details | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| condition | Yes | ||
| statement | Yes | ||
| violation_behavior | No | ||
| verification_method | Yes |
| 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 provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions two required fields without explaining side effects, permissions, or consequences. It does not describe what happens on success or failure, nor any irreversible effects.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains only two sentences with no useful structure or front-loading of critical information.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters, 5 required, no enums, and an output schema (not described). The description provides almost no contextual information needed for correct invocation, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics and usage.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only names 'verificationMethod' and 'condition' (using inconsistent naming versus the schema's verification_method), omitting the other six parameters entirely and providing no meaning for any of them.
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 clear action ('Create an invariant memory') which identifies the resource and the operation. However, it does not explain what an invariant memory is or how it differs from sibling tools like assumption_create or constraint_create, leaving the purpose somewhat generic.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling creation tools. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent cannot decide between invariant_create and other memory creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.