Merge multiple memories into one by retaining the most important as base and appending the rest.
Merge multiple memories into one. Uses the highest-importance memory as the base and appends content from the rest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Memory IDs to merge (at least 2) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the merge behavior (highest-importance base, appending content) which adds meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the source memories are deleted, modified, or preserved, nor does it mention side effects, error conditions, or return value. With no annotations, these omissions are significant, but the core behavior is at least transparent.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded ('Merge multiple memories into one') and the algorithmic detail is given concisely in the second sentence. This is an appropriately sized and well-structured description.
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?
The description is missing critical context for an agent to fully understand the consequences: it does not state what happens to the original memories, what the return value is, or what 'importance' refers to. With no annotations and no output schema, these gaps are significant, making the description incomplete for a merge operation that likely has side effects.
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 schema already documents the 'ids' parameter with a description indicating at least 2 IDs, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter (e.g., order, validity, duplication), so it remains at the baseline expected when the schema covers the parameter.
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 ('Merge multiple memories into one') and the resource, and it distinguishes itself from other memory tools by mentioning the specific merge algorithm (highest-importance base, appending content). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies usage when combining memories but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like memory_summarize or memory_compile_context, nor does it state when not to use it. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context, which is a moderate gap given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed