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 '更新进度文档' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing content, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in behavioral 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?

While the description is extremely concise (only 4 Chinese characters), this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single phrase doesn't provide enough information to be helpful, making it inefficient rather than well-structured. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal content fails to provide necessary context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the basic verb, doesn't provide usage context, doesn't describe behavioral characteristics, and doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata. The description fails to provide the minimal information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 ('projectId' and 'content') having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional information about parameter meaning, format, or constraints beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 '更新进度文档' (Update progress document) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'reflect_update_progress'. It doesn't specify what kind of progress document, how it's updated, or what distinguishes it from similar tools like 'implement_update_progress' or 'update_document'. The description lacks a clear verb+resource combination with specific scope.

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. There are multiple sibling tools that might handle progress or document updates (e.g., 'implement_update_progress', 'update_document', 'reflect_get_history'), but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose other options.

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