Memory MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'accessed frequently' but doesn't explain what constitutes an 'access', how frequency is measured (e.g., time window), whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose 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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'entities' are in this context, how 'accessed' is defined, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of entities with access counts). For a tool with 2 parameters and siblings that might overlap, more context is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('entityType' as an optional filter and 'minAccessCount' as a required threshold). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of entity types or context for what 'minAccessCount' values are typical. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Find entities that are accessed frequently' states the general purpose (finding frequently accessed entities) but lacks specificity about what 'entities' are, what 'accessed' means in this context, or how 'frequently' is defined. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_stale_entities' or 'search_nodes' which might also find entities based on different criteria.

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. With siblings like 'get_stale_entities' (likely for infrequently accessed entities) and 'search_nodes' (likely for general entity search), there's no indication of when this specific frequency-based tool is appropriate, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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