Fuzzy Memory MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'open[s] specific nodes' but doesn't clarify what 'open' entails operationally—whether it's a read-only retrieval, if it modifies state, requires permissions, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 redundancy. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (involving a knowledge graph) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open' means in terms of behavior, return values, or potential side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'names' fully documented in the schema as 'An array of entity names to retrieve'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'by their names' but not elaborating on format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('open') and target ('specific nodes in the knowledge graph'), specifying they are opened 'by their names'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_graph' (general reading) and 'search_nodes' (searching), though not explicitly. However, it lacks full sibling differentiation, as 'open' versus 'read' could be ambiguous without clarification.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving nodes by name, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'read_graph' or 'search_nodes'. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection in context.

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