Memory MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'open[s] specific nodes' but doesn't clarify behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'open' but not explicit), what 'open' entails (e.g., retrieves details, triggers side effects), error handling for non-existent names, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its effects.

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 action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'Open' (verb), 'specific nodes' (resource), 'in the knowledge graph' (context), and 'by their names' (parameter hint). There's no redundancy or fluff, 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 moderate complexity (retrieving nodes by name), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open' means operationally (e.g., returns node details, sets state), potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a retrieval tool in a graph context with siblings that handle similar operations, more detail is needed to guide proper 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 adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'names' parameter as 'An array of entity names to retrieve'. The description mentions 'by their names', reinforcing the parameter's role but not providing additional context (e.g., name format, case sensitivity, or limitations). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding.

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 resource ('specific nodes in the knowledge graph'), specifying it operates 'by their names'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_graph' (general reading) and 'search_nodes' (search-based retrieval), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_frequently_used' or 'get_stale_entities', which might also retrieve nodes, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., nodes must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or updating), or compare to siblings like 'search_nodes' (for fuzzy matching) or 'read_graph' (for bulk access). Without such context, an agent might misuse it in scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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