Read the small recall entry point before answering questions about past work, then fetch only the details you need from the memory shelf.
Return the shelf INDEX — the small recall entry point. Read it before answering anything about past work, then recall only what you need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / $defs / IndexInput / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / $defs / IndexInput / descriptionAdded value: +"Nothing beyond the shelf: INDEX is small and read whole."Input schema / $defs / IndexInput / properties / shelf_path / defaultAdded value: +""Input schema / $defs / IndexInput / properties / shelf_path / descriptionPrevious value: -"Path to an initialized memory shelf."New value: +"Path to an initialized memory shelf. Optional: when omitted, the shelf named by $MEMSHELF_SHELF_PATH is used. Pass it explicitly to address a different shelf than that default."Input schema / $defs / IndexInput / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "shelf_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload is small and read whole, which is useful sizing context, but it does not disclose anything further about auth or scope. Adequate but not rich given the low bar set by annotations.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the primary instruction (read this first) front-loaded ahead of the follow-up action.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and the alternative. Minor gap: it never mentions shelf selection, though the input schema handles that adequately.
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 says nothing about the shelf_path parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema's own description does explain the $MEMSHELF_SHELF_PATH default and when to override it, so semantics are documented somewhere; the description simply does not contribute.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Return the shelf INDEX") and immediately characterizes it as "the small recall entry point," which distinguishes it from the sibling memshelf_recall without the agent needing to open either schema.
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?
Explicitly prescribes when to call it ("Read it before answering anything about past work") and how it relates to the alternative ("then recall only what you need"), effectively routing the agent to memshelf_recall as the follow-up rather than as a substitute.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.