Memory Bank MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('获取' - get) without detailing return format, pagination, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit). This is inadequate for a tool with behavioral implications.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by including context or usage hints without sacrificing 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 complexity (a read operation with one required parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'current' means, the return format, or how it interacts with siblings, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 parameter 'projectId' documented as '项目ID' (project ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'current' tasks are relative to the project. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 '获取当前任务列表' (Get current task list) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('任务列表' - task list), but lacks specificity about scope or filtering. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'plan_update_tasks' or 'archive_completed_tasks', making it vague about what 'current' means in context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring a projectId, nor does it differentiate from other task-related tools such as 'plan_add_task' or 'archive_completed_tasks', leaving usage context unclear.

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