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 'update' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure (e.g., overwrites vs. merges), or any side effects (e.g., notifications, history tracking). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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—a single phrase in Chinese—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail. Every part of the description serves a purpose, even if that purpose is minimal.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or the operational context (e.g., is this for collaborative planning?). The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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 both parameters ('content' and 'projectId') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how 'content' relates to 'task planning document' or provide context for 'projectId'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra credit is earned.

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 '更新任务规划文档' (Update task planning document) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'plan_update_tasks' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what 'update' means operationally (e.g., modify, append, replace) or clarify the scope of 'task planning document' beyond what's implied by the name. While it identifies a verb and resource, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from siblings like 'update_document' or 'plan_add_task'.

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., requires an existing document), exclusions, or compare it to related tools such as 'update_document' (which might handle general documents) or 'plan_add_task' (which might add tasks rather than update planning docs). Without this, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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