Fork the active memory branch at its head into a new branch and switch the session to it, enabling speculative investigation that can be discarded later.
Fork the active branch at its head into a new branch and switch this session to it. Use for speculative work you may want to discard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fork_branch_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important side effect – the session is switched to the new branch – and hints at disposability. It does not say whether the fork is reversible, how the branch is later discarded or merged, or whether the parent branch is affected.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage cue following. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the branch/session semantics are covered. Still missing are the fork-branch naming guidance and any lifecycle context (how to inspect, merge, or discard the fork) needed to use this confidently.
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?
The single parameter fork_branch_name has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so no naming constraints, format, or collision behavior are conveyed. Only one parameter keeps this from being worse.
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 gives a specific verb ('Fork') and resource ('the active branch at its head'), plus the resulting state change of switching this session to the new branch. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like memkernel_checkout or memkernel_rollback, so an agent must infer the difference.
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?
'Use for speculative work you may want to discard' supplies a genuine use-case cue, which is better than nothing. But it names no alternatives and no when-not condition, leaving the agent to guess why it would fork rather than check out an existing branch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.