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 ('Add') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, how it handles errors, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, target, and context concisely.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it incomplete for effective agent 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 description mentions 'observations' and 'entities', aligning with the single parameter 'observations' in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description doesn't add meaningful details about parameter structure (e.g., that 'observations' is an array of objects with 'entityName' and 'contents'). It partially compensates but leaves key semantics undocumented.

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 'update_entity', which could involve similar operations on entities.

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 'update_entity' (which might also modify entities). It mentions 'existing entities' but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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