Smara Memory MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'check current memory usage' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if quotas are exceeded. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds context without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what data is retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling, which are important for a monitoring tool in a server with siblings like delete_memory.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining what information is retrieved ('plan, limits, and how many memories are stored'), which compensates for the lack of output schema, making it above the baseline 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check current memory usage') and resources ('plan, limits, memories stored'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_memory or store_memory. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_user_context or list_memories, which might also involve memory-related queries.

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 implied usage guidance with 'useful for monitoring quota,' suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use criteria or alternatives among siblings, such as clarifying when to use list_memories instead for detailed memory content.

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