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 states it 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it returns all rules or is paginated, what happens if the projectId is invalid, or if authentication is required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 ('获取项目规则列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it returns a list, but overall it's concise and to the point.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., list format, rule fields), error conditions, or behavioral details like pagination. For a list operation, this lack of context makes it harder for an agent to use correctly without trial and error.

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%, with the single parameter 'projectId' documented as '项目ID' (project ID). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string IDs) or context (e.g., must be an existing project). With high schema coverage, the 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 '获取项目规则列表' (Get project rules list) clearly states the verb (get/list) and resource (project rules), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rule' (which presumably retrieves a single rule) or 'list_documents' (which lists documents instead of rules), leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific list operation versus other retrieval tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid projectId), exclusions (e.g., not for archived rules), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_rule' for single rule retrieval or 'list_documents' for document listings. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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