Smara Memory MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions visibility status and use cases but fails to cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently combines purpose and usage guidelines without redundancy. Every part earns its place, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, auth) and doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying visibility filtering but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 as listing stored memories for a user with visibility status, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_memories' (filtered search) or 'get_user_context' (context retrieval). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'get_usage'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 clear usage contexts: when the user wants to see what's remembered, review team vs private memories, or find a memory to update/delete. This gives practical guidance but lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to use it vs. 'search_memories') or named alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

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