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. '创建' (Create) implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, permissions), usage context, and what the tool returns. Given the complexity of a write operation and the absence of structured data to compensate, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to be fully helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., '反思内容' for content, '项目ID' for projectId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 '创建项目反思记录' (Create project reflection record) states the action and resource clearly, but it's somewhat vague about what a 'reflection record' entails compared to siblings like 'reflect_get_history' or 'reflect_update_progress'. It doesn't specify if this is a journal entry, review, or other type of reflection, leaving room for ambiguity in distinguishing it from related 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or how it differs from other 'reflect_' tools like 'reflect_get_history' or 'reflect_update_progress'. The description alone offers no context for selection among siblings.

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