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. The description only states '创建创意记录' (Create creative record), which implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions needed, side effects, error conditions, response format, or any behavioral traits like rate limits or idempotency. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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 extremely concise at just three characters in Chinese ('创建创意记录'), which translates to 'Create creative record'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. For a simple creation tool, this brevity is efficient, though it comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: what an 'idea' entails in this system, how it relates to other entities (e.g., projects), what happens after creation, or any error handling. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for safe and 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented in Chinese (e.g., '创意内容' for content, '项目ID' for projectId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '创建创意记录' (Create creative record) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'creative_add_idea' in Chinese. While it indicates a creation action, it lacks specificity about what kind of record is being created or what distinguishes it from other creation tools like 'create_project' or 'reflect_create'. The purpose is vague without additional context about the domain or 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for creation (e.g., 'create_project', 'reflect_create', 'plan_add_task'), but no indication of when this specific tool for adding ideas is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or what scenarios it's designed for. This leaves the agent guessing about context.

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