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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It indicates a write operation ('Create') but doesn't disclose permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The active voice note is trivial and doesn't add meaningful operational context.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence about active voice adds little value and could be omitted. It's efficient but not perfectly optimized, warranting a 4.

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 write tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It misses critical details like mutation effects, error cases, and return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 but only vaguely mentions 'relations' without explaining the structure or semantics. It implies batch creation but doesn't detail the 'relations' array or its items. Baseline 3 is given as it hints at parameters but lacks substantive clarification.

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 multiple new relations') and the resource ('between entities in the knowledge graph'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_entities' or 'delete_relations'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'add_observations' or other relation-related tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 'add_observations' or 'create_entities', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual note is about active voice, which is stylistic rather than functional guidance.

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