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 full burden. '更新' (update) implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely concise - a single phrase with zero waste. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. The description is front-loaded but under-specified rather than appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'development progress' means, what gets updated, what the return values might be, or how this differs from similar update tools. The minimal description fails to provide necessary context for proper tool selection and 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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (completion, projectId, status, taskId) with their types, descriptions, and required status. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 '更新开发进度' (Update development progress) states a clear verb ('更新' - update) and resource ('开发进度' - development progress), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'implement_update_context' or 'plan_update_tasks'. It doesn't specify whether this updates task progress, project progress, or something else.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple update-related siblings (implement_update_context, plan_update_tasks, reflect_update_progress, update_project, etc.), but the description provides no differentiation. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for use.

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