Fuzzy Memory MCP Server

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 states this is an 'Add' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if entities don't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 mutation tool with 1 parameter (but complex nested structure), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what observations are, how they're structured, what happens on success/failure, or provide any behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'observations' and 'existing entities' but doesn't explain the structure of observations, what 'entityName' refers to, or the format/constraints of observation contents. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the parameter names.

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 ('Add new observations') and target ('to existing entities in the knowledge graph'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_entities' or 'delete_observations', which would require more specific context about when to use each.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_entities' (for new entities) or 'delete_observations'. It mentions 'existing entities' which implies a prerequisite, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparison with sibling tools.

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