Submits a memory receipt to the intake queue for review and later application, ensuring memory changes are audited before taking effect.
Submits a MEMORY_RECEIPT.md formatted string to the intake queue. Does not apply it directly; it must be reviewed and applied.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical non-obvious behavior: the receipt is queued and not applied immediately. But it omits other behavioral details such as validation, idempotency, or failure modes.
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?
Two short sentences with the action and the essential caveat front-loaded. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the core lifecycle: submit, then review, then apply. Yet it does not mention how to verify submission success or check queue status, which would be useful given siblings like list_intake and apply_intake_proposal.
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 schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by identifying the expected format: 'a MEMORY_RECEIPT.md formatted string'. However, it does not define the structure or constraints of that format, leaving the agent to infer a spec.
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 states a specific verb ('Submits') and resource ('MEMORY_RECEIPT.md formatted string') with a clear destination ('intake queue'). It also distinguishes itself from apply-style tools by noting the receipt is not applied directly, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 statement 'Does not apply it directly; it must be reviewed and applied' implies this is the submission step before review/application. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like trusted_memory_propose, trusted_memory_review, or apply_intake_proposal, nor does it provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.