On Board

by swisspra

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

memory_update_state

Idempotent

Update shared key-value state, stamped with your agent name, to coordinate project memory across multiple agents.

Instructions

Update shared key-value state. Stamped with agent_name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "memory_update_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.0.4Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the behavioral detail that updates are 'Stamped with agent_name', which is useful context. However, it does not explain the stamping mechanism or what happens to existing values, so it adds only partial value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and each word contributes meaning. This is a model of conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While an output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It lacks guidance on usage, parameter behavior, and the exact meaning of 'stamped'. The presence of many sibling memory tools also demands clearer differentiation, which is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides virtually no parameter information. It mentions 'agent_name' in the context of stamping but does not clarify the roles of 'key' or 'value'. The agent is left to infer parameter semantics from names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'shared key-value state', making the tool's primary function clear. It adds 'Stamped with agent_name' providing extra specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like memory_write, which could also be used for writing state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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