Add a named entity with optional aliases and attributes to the memory graph, enabling structured knowledge storage and retrieval.
Add an entity with aliases and attributes in an exact scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | Other | |
| aliases | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| attributes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Aside from the annotations (not readOnly, not destructive), the description provides no behavioral details such as whether adding an existing name errors, whether scope is required, how IDs are assigned, or what the response contains. The description adds little beyond the schema 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?
The description is a single compact sentence and is not padded. It loses a point only because 'exact scope' is vague and the sentence does not carry enough useful information.
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 mutating creation tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description omits key context: whether the operation is idempotent, what uniqueness rules apply, how scope is determined, and what success/failure looks like. It is not complete enough for reliable autonomous use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and six parameters, the description only hints at aliases, attributes, and scope. It does not explain namespace, project nullability, uniqueness constraints, or default type behavior, so parameter semantics are mostly underspecified.
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 identifies the action ('Add') and resource ('entity'), and mentions aliases, attributes, and scope. It distinguishes from related tools like entity_get/entity_update, though 'exact scope' is somewhat vague.
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 guidance is given about when to use entity_add versus sibling tools such as entity_update or memory_add. An agent must infer that entity_add is for creating new entities rather than modifying or searching existing ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.