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 explains the search is 'fuzzy semantic' and returns confidence scores, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a search operation.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers key behavioral aspects (fuzzy semantic search, confidence scores) without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (search operation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the core functionality and return format but lacks details on error cases, performance, or integration with sibling tools, making it minimally viable.

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 the single 'query' parameter. The description adds minimal value by implying the query matches against 'entity names, types, and observation content', but this is redundant with the schema's description. 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 specific action ('performs a fuzzy semantic search'), the target resource ('nodes in the knowledge graph'), and the scope ('based on a query'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'open_nodes' (likely for opening specific nodes) and 'read_graph' (likely for reading the entire graph) by focusing on search functionality.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'open_nodes' or 'read_graph', leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.

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