Memsolus MCP Server

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 effectively describes the mutation nature ('Replace'), consequences (triggers re-processing including embedding, categorization, consolidation), and operational preferences (prefer over delete+add). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational or contextual information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given the mutation complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete for tool selection—it covers purpose, usage, and behavioral effects. However, it omits details on return values or error responses, which would be needed for full invocation support, preventing a perfect score.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides for memory_id, memory, or priority, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 states the specific action ('Replace an existing memory with new text') and resource ('memory'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_memory (removal) and add_memory (creation). It explicitly mentions triggering re-processing, which adds operational context beyond basic replacement.

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 description provides explicit 'When to use' scenarios (correcting facts, preference changes, outdated info) and 'When NOT to use' guidance (completely wrong info, directing to delete_memory). It also advises preferring this tool over delete+add for fixing existing info, offering clear alternatives.

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