Store a memory in a project's knowledge base so future sessions can recall key context.
Store a memory in a project's knowledge base for future sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Short key for this memory. | |
| client | Yes | Trove client name. | |
| content | Yes | Memory content to store. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write but says nothing about key-collision behavior (overwrite vs. error), durability scope (per project? per client?), required permissions, or what is returned on success.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. It is efficient; the problem is under-specification, not verbosity.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain persistence semantics and overwrite behavior. With three required parameters and a near-identical sibling, the current one-liner leaves real decision gaps.
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% and all three parameters are required and documented there. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it does not clarify what a 'trove client' is or how it scopes the stored memory — so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('a memory in a project's knowledge base'), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling trawl_memory_store, which appears to do the same thing.
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?
'for future sessions' hints at the intent (persistence across sessions) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. Critically, the sibling trawl_memory_store is an apparent duplicate and the description gives no basis for choosing between the two.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.