Smara Memory MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a mutation operation ('Update'), it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and prerequisites in subsequent sentences. Each sentence earns its place by adding necessary context without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose, usage, and parameters indirectly, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more contextual information would be beneficial to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameters in context ('visibility (private/team) or importance'), but does not provide additional semantics like examples or edge cases. 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 specific action ('Update a memory's visibility or importance') and the resource ('memory'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_memory, store_memory, list_memories, and search_memories. It specifies exactly what can be modified (visibility and importance), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 context on when to use this tool ('when a user wants to make a memory private, share it with the team, or change its importance') and references sibling tools for prerequisites ('Find the memory ID via search_memories or list_memories first'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like store_memory for creating new memories, which prevents a perfect score.

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