Store versioned, typed investigation memories with epistemic state and provenance so security analysts preserve structured findings across sessions and keep evidence traceable.
Store versioned typed memory with epistemic state and provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| layer | No | L2 | |
| state | Yes | ||
| entity | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation, and the description aligns by saying 'Store' and adding that memory is versioned and carries epistemic state/provenance. However, it does not explain versioning behavior (e.g., overwrite vs append), required permissions, or what happens on duplicate entity/project combinations. With annotations covering safety, this is moderate added context.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the distinguishing attributes. It is very concise and structured as a headline, though its brevity is arguably too extreme for an 8-parameter tool.
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 an 8-parameter, 6-required write tool with a nested provenance object, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meanings, usage context, versioning semantics, and error/duplicate behavior.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for 8 parameters. It only alludes to type, state, and provenance in passing and leaves project, entity, summary, content, and layer completely undocumented beyond their enum values.
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 'versioned typed memory', and names the epistemic-state and provenance dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as evidence_store or memory_search, but the core action is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus memory_search, memory_context, evidence_store, or task_update. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to store a new memory or update/query existing ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.