Generate a consent URL to enable secure memory sharing between agents. Specify agent ID and redirect URI to obtain the authorization link.
Create a MemoryOS consent URL for cross-agent memory sharing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| redirect_uri | Yes | ||
| consent_base_url | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says a URL is created. It does not disclose OAuth/consent flow side effects, what happens to existing consent, whether an external request is made, or what the caller should expect beyond the returned URL.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, it is arguably too terse for a 4-parameter tool with zero annotation support, so it loses a point for underspecification.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and schema descriptions are absent; an output schema exists but is not shown. The description gives no workflow context, no parameter explanations, and no behavioral notes, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call without guessing.
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?
Input schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter by name. It adds only the general context that the URL is for cross-agent sharing, leaving agents to infer the roles of agent_id, redirect_uri, state, and consent_base_url.
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 begins with a specific verb ('Create') and a concrete resource ('a MemoryOS consent URL'), then states the purpose ('for cross-agent memory sharing'). This is enough to distinguish it from the memory CRUD and stats siblings, none of which produce a consent URL.
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 'for cross-agent memory sharing' implies the tool is for generating a user-facing consent link in that workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites/exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.