maimemo-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about filtering capabilities (limit, offset, ids), which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination details, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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 that front-loads the purpose and lists parameters without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's functionality, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (list operation), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It could improve by mentioning sibling tool distinctions or pagination behavior, but it adequately covers the core functionality and parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all three parameters (limit, offset, ids) and indicating they are optional filters. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by clarifying their purpose for filtering, though it does not detail format constraints (e.g., id string requirements).

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 clearly states the action ('List'), resource ('Maimemo cloud notepads'), and scope ('with optional limit, offset, and id filters'), distinguishing it from siblings like maimemo_get_notepad (singular retrieval) and maimemo_list_today_words (different resource type).

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?

The description implies usage for listing notepads with filtering options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like maimemo_get_notepad or maimemo_find_vocabulary. It provides clear context for filtering but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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