Shared Memory MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions publishing for consumption by other workers, which hints at a write operation with potential side effects, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if the output key already exists. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, though it could be more informative. There's no wasted text, earning a high score for 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?

Given the complexity implied by a write operation ('publish') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow with siblings. For a tool that likely involves state changes and coordination, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (session_id, output_key, data) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or expected data formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 the action ('publish') and the resource ('an output'), but it's vague about what 'publish' entails in this context and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'declare_outputs' or 'publish_work_units'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the mechanism or scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'declare_outputs' or 'publish_work_units'. The description mentions 'for other workers to consume', which implies a collaborative context, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or clear usage scenarios relative to sibling tools.

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