Memory Bank MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (export) without explaining what happens (e.g., creates a downloadable file, triggers an async process, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or affects system state). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 phrase ('导出项目文档'), which is concise and front-loaded. However, it's overly terse and under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations, missing necessary details that would justify a higher score for true efficiency.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the export process, output format (beyond parameter hints), error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a mutation-like tool (implied by 'export'), more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in Chinese: '导出格式(markdown, html)' for 'format' and '项目ID' for 'projectId'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default behaviors or usage examples. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 '导出项目文档' (export project documents) restates the tool name 'archive_export_project' in different words, making it tautological. It specifies the action (export) and resource (project documents) but lacks specificity about what 'export' entails (e.g., file generation, download link) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_document' or 'list_documents'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot export incomplete projects), or compare it to siblings like 'get_document' (for single documents) or 'list_documents' (for listings). The description is too vague to inform usage decisions.

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