memoryos_api_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'advanced allowlisted,' which hints at access restrictions, but it does not warn that arbitrary method/path calls may mutate data, require special auth, or return inconsistent shapes. The behavioral risk profile of a raw API passthrough is largely undisclosed.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with 'Advanced allowlisted MemoryOS API request' and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it achieves brevity at the cost of behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description is only one sentence. An agent has insufficient information to select this tool confidently, choose an endpoint, pass authentication correctly, or interpret the response.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides no meaning for method, path, json, params, uui_token, agent_api_key, or use_universal_auth. The auth-related parameters are especially ambiguous, including the relationship between uui_token, agent_api_key, and use_universal_auth.

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?

Description clearly identifies this as a low-level allowlisted MemoryOS API passthrough and differentiates it from first-class sibling tools by stating it covers endpoints 'not yet promoted.' It lacks a specific verb or endpoint example, but that is inherent to a generic request tool.

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 phrase 'endpoints not yet promoted to first-class MCP tools' implies use only when no dedicated sibling exists, providing implicit usage context. However, it never explicitly tells the agent to prefer existing memory/support/billing tools where available, and it does not explain the allowlist boundary or any authentication prerequisites.

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