amnesia_checkRun a deterministic, read-only ADD continuity check to detect gaps in a project's stored lessons and verify the learning loop remains intact.
Runs the deterministic, read-only ADD continuity check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| kanban_board | No | ||
| projects_root | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: the operation is 'deterministic' and 'read-only'. Since no annotations are provided, this helps an agent understand that the tool is safe and repeatable. However, it does not explain what the check does, what inputs affect behavior, or what state or conditions it inspects.
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 and front-loads the action. However, it is more under-specified than usefully concise; critical context about the check and its parameters is absent.
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?
Even though an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the description omits essential context: what 'ADD' stands for, what qualifies as a continuity issue, when to run the check, and how the parameters affect execution. An agent would struggle to decide when or how to invoke 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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters ('project', 'kanban_board', 'projects_root'). The parameter names offer some hints, but the tool's purpose and the role of each parameter remain unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 specific action and resource ('Runs the deterministic, read-only ADD continuity check') and conveys that it performs some kind of check. However, the acronym 'ADD' is never expanded and the nature of the 'continuity check' is opaque, so an agent cannot fully tell what is being checked. It also does not differentiate this tool from the related sibling 'amnesia_evaluate'.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'amnesia_evaluate' or 'project_preflight'. The description only says it runs a check, leaving the triggering conditions and exclusions entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.