Store long-term memories such as user preferences, project details, and technical decisions. Use categories, tags, and importance levels to organize and preserve critical context across sessions.
存储一条长期记忆（如用户偏好、项目信息、技术决策等）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | 标签 | |
| content | Yes | 记忆内容 | |
| category | No | 分类 | |
| importance | No | 重要性 (1-10, 默认5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. It only says 'store,' giving no information about persistence guarantees, idempotency, overwrite behavior, potential side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then gives clarifying examples. Every word earns its place.
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 straightforward store operation with a well-documented schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not address return values (no output schema exists), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling memory-saving tools like memvid_save_context and memvid_quick_save, leaving some contextual ambiguity.
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 input schema already documents all four parameters (tags, content, category, importance). The description adds context through examples of content types but does not meaningfully elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.
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 clear verb and resource: '存储一条长期记忆' (store a long-term memory), with concrete examples like user preferences, project information, and technical decisions. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as memvid_quick_save or memvid_save_context, so it loses a point.
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 examples and the phrase '长期记忆' (long-term memory) provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate, implying it is for durable storage rather than transient data. However, it does not state exclusions or name alternatives like memvid_quick_save, leaving some routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.