Add a new pattern to Mimir's reasoning graph by storing its situation, approach, and success rate, optionally scoped to a project.
Add a new pattern to the graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | ||
| approach | Yes | ||
| situation | Yes | ||
| success_rate | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: no persistence/dedup behavior, no permission requirements, no mention of the success_rate range constraint or what happens on duplicate patterns. A one-line mutation description with zero annotation coverage leaves the agent with no behavioral model.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence, so there is no padding, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. The one sentence provided does not earn its place by adding information beyond the name.
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?
A write tool with 3 required, undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits the return value, error behavior, and the semantics of the required fields — nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is present.
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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for situation, approach, success_rate, or project. Key ambiguities — whether project is a link or a label, whether success_rate is a probability or a count — are unresolved in both schema and prose.
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?
"Add a new pattern to the graph" is essentially the tool name reworded: insert_pattern → add a pattern. It adds only the vague notion of "the graph" and does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like insert_belief, insert_experience, or delete_pattern. No indication of what a "pattern" is in this system.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives. The agent gets no signal about when a pattern should be inserted versus a belief or an experience, nor whether the referenced project must already exist. Completely silent on routing.
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