Start a new in-memory conversation session to organize engineering workflows like code review, debugging, and design review. Provide a title and optional tags to create a focused session.
Start an in-memory conversation session
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Tags | |
| title | Yes | Title | |
| description | No | Description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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. The term 'in-memory' hints at non-persistence, but nothing is disclosed about session lifetime, whether a start discards prior sessions, whether multiple sessions can coexist, or what the return value is. For a tool that creates a session, these are significant undocumented behaviors.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, which is good for conciseness. However, the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It is appropriately short but does not earn its length with substantive content.
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 tool that initiates a session, the description is incomplete. It does not address how 'in-memory' affects conversation persistence, how a new session relates to existing ones, or how it interacts with the sibling conversation tools. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent lacks essential context to call this tool correctly.
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%, which establishes a baseline of 3. However, the schema descriptions are bare labels ('Title', 'Description', 'Tags') that add little semantic meaning. The tool description contributes nothing about the parameters beyond what the schema states, so it does not exceed the baseline, though it does not fall below it either.
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 verb ('start') and resource ('conversation session'), but this is nearly a restatement of the tool name 'start_conversation'. The only added information is 'in-memory', which provides a slight qualifier. It does not distinguish the tool from its conversation siblings like continue_conversation, list_conversations, or clear_conversation, so it falls short of clear sibling differentiation.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any conditions for starting a conversation. Given the presence of closely related siblings (continue_conversation, list_conversations, clear_conversation), the absence of any routing or when-to-use guidance is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.