Memory MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: it performs verification, identifies orphaned entities, and returns hallucinated names with fuzzy search suggestions. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics (e.g., time-intensive), side effects, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 and output. Every word contributes value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic behavioral context but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of suggestions), error cases, or operational constraints. It's adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete for integrity verification in a knowledge graph context.

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 parameter 'maxSuggestions' with its purpose and default. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('verify integrity', 'check for orphaned entities') and resources ('knowledge graph', 'relationships'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_component_props' or 'get_stale_entities' by focusing on relationship integrity rather than component validation or staleness detection.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., after deletions), or compare to siblings like 'validate_component_props' for other integrity checks. The description implies usage for finding orphaned entities but lacks context on when this is needed.

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