Bind a short mnemonic to an absolute local file path, so later queries can resolve 'the spec' to the exact document. Solves the problem of needing full paths in natural language memory retrieval.
Anchor a short name to an absolute local file path so future queries can resolve "the spec" to the real document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Short mnemonic name, e.g. "qianshi-spec". | |
| path | Yes | Absolute local file path. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the mapping persists and influences future queries, which is useful. However, it does not state whether re-anchoring an existing name overwrites or fails, nor the lifetime/scope of the mapping.
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?
One tight sentence that front-loads the action and immediately explains why the tool exists. The 'the spec' example is illustrative without adding unnecessary length or jargon.
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 simple two-parameter alias tool, the description is largely complete: parameters are fully covered, and the persistent effect on future queries is stated. A note about overwriting or conflict behavior would push it to fully complete, but the current definition is sufficient for basic invocation.
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?
The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage. The description loosely reinforces 'short name' and 'absolute local file path' but adds no new format, constraint, or relationship details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 verb ('anchor'), a resource ('short name' / 'absolute local file path'), and the intended effect on future queries. This clearly differentiates it from sibling memory/context tools, which address broader contextual storage rather than file-path aliasing.
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 'so future queries can resolve...' gives a clear purpose and context for use: when a mnemonic should stand in for an absolute file path in later queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.