Store and retrieve repository conventions, decisions, and commands in a shared notes file so coding agents reuse project context without rereading source files.
Repo memory (/.lean-context/notes.md): conventions, decisions, commands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | any path in the repo | |
| action | Yes | ||
| content | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the storage location. It says nothing about the semantics of mutating the store (whether 'set' overwrites, 'append' preserves), persistence across sessions, or concurrency/auth concerns for a write-capable tool.
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 single parenthetical phrase is compact and front-loads the concept of repo memory, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is wasted, but too little is said to be useful.
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?
For a three-parameter, mutation-capable tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how to choose between the enum actions or what the response of a get would look like.
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 only 33% — 'action' has an enum but no prose, and 'content' has no description at all. The description mentions the notes file location, which loosely maps to 'path', but it never explains the get/set/append modes or what content should contain, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 identifies the resource — a repo-level notes file holding conventions, decisions, and commands — and its backing path, but never states a verb or what the tool does with it (read, write, or append). An agent learns what is stored, not what operation is available, which leaves the purpose implied rather than stated.
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?
Nothing indicates when an agent should consult repo memory versus calling outline, read_symbol, search, run_compact, or summary_cache. There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or the conditions that make this the right sibling to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.