Extract key facts from any text and store them into a personal memory graph for later retrieval and association.
Extract facts from text and write them into the memory graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| source_id | No | mcp-session |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it extracts facts from text, which is the core behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like deduplication, failure handling, or whether existing memories are overwritten, leaving some behavioral ambiguity beyond the annotations.
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 filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear. Every word contributes to the core message.
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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main action but lacks usage guidance and source_id semantics. The output schema exists, so return format is not needed. However, an agent would not know when to use this over alternatives or what source_id does, making the description incomplete for confident invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions 'text' as the source of facts, which adds meaning. However, it completely ignores 'source_id', leaving its purpose and default behavior unexplained. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description only partially covers the parameter semantics.
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 verb and resource: 'Extract facts from text and write them into the memory graph.' It clearly conveys the add operation, distinct from siblings like search_memory, forget_memory, and get_graph, which are implied by the memory graph context.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, prerequisites, or compare with export_memory or search_memory. An agent must infer the usage from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.