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 ('get rule content') without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what happens on failure (e.g., invalid ruleId), or the format of the returned content. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 with a single phrase ('获取规则内容'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be overly terse given the lack of other context, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'rule content' entails, how it differs from other rule-related tools, or what the output might look like. For a retrieval tool in a context with multiple sibling tools, more guidance is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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 (ruleId is documented as '规则ID' or 'rule ID'), so the schema provides complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取规则内容' (Get rule content) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_rule' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what 'rule content' includes or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_rules' or 'create_rule'. While it indicates a retrieval action, it lacks specificity about the resource being accessed.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_rules' (likely for listing multiple rules) and 'update_rule' (for modifying rules), the description provides no context about whether this tool retrieves a single rule by ID, when it should be preferred over listing, or any prerequisites for usage.

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