Memory Bank 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 states the tool retrieves a 'detailed description,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'detailed' entails (e.g., format, depth). This leaves behavioral traits unclear, making it inadequate for a 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, clear sentence: 'Get a detailed description of the Memory Bank file structure.' It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. This makes it highly efficient and easy to understand.

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 complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps in completeness for a tool that might return complex structural information.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4. It appropriately avoids unnecessary details, though it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.

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: 'Get a detailed description of the Memory Bank file structure.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Memory Bank file structure'), making the action and target explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_project_summary' or 'generate_memory_bank_template', which prevents a score of 5.

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 sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for understanding file organization versus generating templates or analyzing summaries. This lack of explicit or implied usage guidelines results in a low score.

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