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 what the tool does ('get project document list') without mentioning whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or returns structured data. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 phrase ('获取项目文档列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.

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 complexity (a list operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included), error conditions, or behavioral traits. The agent is left guessing about key aspects of the tool's behavior.

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 the single parameter 'projectId' documented as '项目ID' (project ID). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid project ID or how it relates to the output. 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 '获取项目文档列表' translates to 'Get project document list', which clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('project document list'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_document', which appears to retrieve a single document rather than a list. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'get_document' or 'list_projects'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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