Detects project conventions and saves them to memory.md, giving AI assistants persistent context without rescanning.
Detects project conventions and saves them to memory.md automatically.
This persists conventions so AI assistants have context without re-scanning.
Returns:
Confirmation with summary of what was saved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the mutation profile. It says conventions are saved automatically and a confirmation is returned, but it omits whether existing memory.md content is overwritten, merged, or preserved, and any permission or project-root prerequisites.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The 'Returns' sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it does not bloat the definition.
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?
For a zero-argument tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and result. However, it leaves out how saving interacts with existing memory content and when to prefer it over related memory or convention tools, so it is adequate rather than complete.
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 the schema has nothing to explain; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
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 names a specific action (detect and save project conventions) and the target artifact (memory.md), so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with detect_project_conventions, but the save/persist framing differentiates it reasonably.
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?
It gives an implicit reason to use it—persisting conventions so assistants avoid re-scanning—but no explicit guidance on when to choose it over detect_project_conventions or update_memory. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.