Check a canonical JSONL memory ledger for policy compliance and record integrity, returning read-only audit findings to validate research records.
Return read-only policy and record-integrity findings for canonical JSONL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about returning policy and integrity findings but does not disclose further behavioral details such as how results are scoped, what 'canonical JSONL' implies, or any edge cases. It is consistent with annotations, adding moderate value beyond 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 a single sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place – no fluff, no redundancy. It is optimally concise while remaining clear.
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 zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose. It does not explain what constitutes 'policy' or 'record-integrity findings' in detail, but the output schema likely fills that gap. The description is sufficiently complete for a parameterless read-only tool.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description need not add parameter-level semantics. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description provides no extra parameter info, but none is needed.
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 a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'read-only policy and record-integrity findings' with a clear context 'for canonical JSONL.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_fetch_evidence (which fetches evidence) and memory_check_evidence_eligibility (checks eligibility).
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many memory and governance siblings. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.