Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mem_searchA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description implies a read-only search but does not explicitly state that no changes are made or disclose any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially addresses behavioral transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses only necessary words. The structure with intro, usage, and parameter list is efficient and scannable.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the 3 parameters and output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, usage, and parameter details. It lacks information on pagination or sorting, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a search tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: query (with examples), project (optional filter), and limit (default 10). This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool searches across all project memories, with specific use cases (find patterns, decisions, solutions). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mem_recall, which might also retrieve memories.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It explicitly tells when to use the tool ('find patterns, decisions, and solutions') and provides query logic (AND, quoted phrases). It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the guidance is clear for its intended purpose.

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

• mem_forgetA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the deletion action and the need for a valid ID from search, but fails to mention potential behaviors like what happens if the ID does not exist or if the operation is irreversible.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very concise, with the core action in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear action) and the presence of an output schema (implied from context signals), the description covers the essential aspects: what, when, and how. It could be improved by noting error behavior for nonexistent IDs.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the parameter memory_id as 'The ID of the memory to delete (shown in search results),' adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Delete a memory by ID,' a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mem_search, mem_recall, mem_save, and mem_ingest by focusing on deletion.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description says 'Use this to remove stale, wrong, or duplicate memories' and advises to 'Find the ID via mem_search first, then pass it here.' This provides clear context on when and how to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it.

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

• mem_saveA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the memory is immediately searchable, but does not disclose any destructive effects, authorization requirements, or whether the tool is idempotent. For a save operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-liner, then lists usage scenarios in a bullet-like manner, and follows with parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value without being verbose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage context. It could mention return values or error cases for completeness, but it is sufficient for a save tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining each parameter: content (be specific and actionable), section (category heading with examples), project (auto-detected), and cwd (defaults to os.getcwd()). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default info.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save a memory during a coding session.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., mem_search) by noting that saved memories are searchable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides extensive usage guidance, listing concrete scenarios (patterns, decisions, gotchas, etc.) and stating 'when you discover something worth remembering.' It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

• mem_ingestA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description details the action: reads files and updates the searchable index. While it doesn't specify overwrite vs merge, it adequately conveys the non-destructive update behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides essential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given zero parameters, an output schema (not needing description), and sibling tools covering other actions, the description fully explains when and why to use this tool. It mentions the specific files read and the effect on the index.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description implicitly clarifies no arguments are needed by stating 're-ingesting all memory files,' adding value beyond the empty schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it refreshes the memory index by re-ingesting memory files, specifically from Claude Code and Gemini CLI. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mem_search, mem_recall, etc., which are for different operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Run this when you know memory files have changed,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternatives needed since siblings cover other actions.

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

• mem_recallA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns 'the project's own memories plus cross-project patterns' and that it auto-detects the project from cwd. It does not mention side effects, but as a recall operation, it is likely read-only. Could be more transparent about idempotency or performance, but still informative.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then explains return and timing, followed by auto-detection detail and Args section. Every sentence is essential and adds value, with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the most important information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has an output schema (context signal shows true), the description does not need to explain returns. It covers purpose, usage context, auto-detection behavior, and parameters. For a recall tool with 2 optional params, this is complete and no major gaps are present.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'project' (auto-detected if omitted) and 'cwd' (defaults to os.getcwd()). It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, making the parameters clear and compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description immediately states 'Recall relevant memories for a project at session start,' specifying the verb 'recall' and the resource 'memories for a project.' It distinguishes from siblings like mem_search (search) and mem_save/ingest/forget (modify) by focusing on context loading. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Call this at the beginning of a coding session to load context,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains auto-detection when no project is given. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives (e.g., mem_search for more specific queries), but the context is strong.

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