Store or update scoped memories for user, project, or session. Reusing a topic supersedes previous content while preserving history.
Append a user, project, or session memory. Reusing a topic supersedes it without rewriting history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| scope | Yes | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| importance | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| project_root | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a non-obvious behavior: 'Reusing a topic supersedes it without rewriting history,' which adds meaningful context beyond the sparse annotations. Since readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are all false, this explanation helps clarify the actual write semantics without contradicting them.
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 the purpose front-loaded and the behavioral caveat in the second sentence. It is appropriately compact, though the phrase 'supersedes it without rewriting history' is somewhat ambiguous.
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?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves too much unspecified: meaning of required fields, effect of optional fields like metadata and importance, return value, and how the 'history' mechanism works. It is not complete enough for reliable tool invocation.
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%, and the description names no parameters directly. It indirectly mentions 'topic' and scope values, but does not explain content, metadata, tags, importance, session_id, or project_root, so it does not compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Append' and identifies the resource as user/project/session memory, which is clear. It adds a behavioral nuance about topic reuse, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_ingest_project or memory_engineering_context, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_recall, memory_forget, memory_ingest_project, or memory_engineering_context. The description implies use when appending memory, but provides no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.