MemoryVault presents a large, complex tool surface (44 tools) with significant quality gaps. While tool names follow verb_noun conventions (memory_save, memory_search, memory_delete), the vast majority of tools lack visible input parameter schemas in the provided source code. Only memory_save shows a complete parameter schema with type definitions and descriptions. Most other tools are listed in tools-schema.ts with names and brief descriptions but NO explicit parameter definitions are visible. The server attempts sophisticated features (graph reasoning, conflict resolution, spaced repetition) but the tool interface lacks the rigor expected for production use. Error handling, output schemas, and parameter constraints are not documented in the visible source. The tools are logically grouped (memory_*, objective_*, brain_*, tool_*) but composition is unclear, many tools appear to operate on the same resource without clear disambiguation of when to use which variant.
Critical: 43 of 44 tools lack visible input parameter schemas. Only memory_save shows a complete typed parameter schema with descriptions. All other tools are registered with names/descriptions only, no explicit parameter definitions visible in source.
IMMEDIATE: Add complete input parameter schemas to all 43 tools lacking them. For each tool, define: parameter name, type (string/number/boolean/enum), description (50-150 chars), and constraints (min/max, enum values, regex patterns). Use the memory_save schema as a template.
Expand all tool descriptions from 20-50 chars to 100-200 chars. Include: (1) What the tool does, (2) When to use it vs similar tools, (3) What it returns, (4) Key prerequisites or dependencies. Example: 'Retrieve a specific memory by ID. Returns the memory object with content, metadata (tags, confidence, importance), and relationship count. Use this after search_memories returns a memory_id. Prerequisite: valid memory_id.'
Add output schema documentation to each tool. For each, state: (a) Return type (object/array/string), (b) Key fields in the response (e.g., id, content, tags, updated_at, link_count), (c) Pagination if applicable (total_count, next_cursor). Include field types and descriptions.
Document error conditions and recovery paths for each tool. For retryable errors (timeouts, rate limits), guide the LLM: 'If search times out, retry with narrower query.' For user errors (not found, invalid input), guide correction: 'Memory ID not found. Try memory_search with a keyword.'
Clarify tool composition: Add a decision tree or matrix (e.g., 'Choose memory_get for direct ID lookup, memory_search for keyword/semantic search, memory_activate for access tracking, memory_spaced_repetition for review-pending items'). This reduces LLM confusion and wasted calls.
High: Tool descriptions are uniformly terse (20-80 chars). Most describe WHAT the tool does but not WHEN to use it, what prerequisites exist, or what the return structure is. No example: 'Retrieve a specific memory by ID' vs 'Get a specific memory by ID (required: memory ID). Returns memory object with content, tags, confidence, importance, and timestamps.'
High: No output schemas documented. LLMs cannot plan downstream tool calls without knowing what fields each tool returns. E.g., memory_search says 'Hybrid retrieval' but does not document whether it returns memory IDs, full objects, scores, or pagination tokens.
High: No error handling guidance. Tools do not document what can go wrong, whether errors are retryable, or what the LLM should do next. E.g., memory_get should explain 'If memory ID not found, try memory_search first.'
Medium: Tool composition unclear. 43 tools operate on 'memory' resource but distinctions are vague. memory_get vs memory_activate vs memory_search, when should an agent use which? No decision tree or dependency hints provided.
Medium: Destructive operations (memory_delete, memory_conflict_resolve, memory_merge) lack confirmation or dry-run hints. Descriptions do not warn that these are irreversible.
Medium: No visible pagination or result-limiting strategy documented. tools like memory_search, memory_neighbors, and memory_subgraph could return unbounded result sets. No mention of limit, offset, or max_results parameters.
Low: Tool names using 'get_*' and 'list_*' variants (memory_get vs memory_activate, objective_list vs objective_next_actions) risk LLM confusion. Consider clearer disambiguation or consolidation.
Add dry-run or confirmation support for destructive operations. For memory_delete, add optional 'dry_run: true' parameter that returns 'Would delete memory X with 5 relationships. Confirm with dry_run: false.' For memory_conflict_resolve, document conflict state and require explicit resolution choice.
Add pagination to tools returning multiple results. Add parameters like 'limit' (default 20, max 100) and 'offset' (or 'cursor') to memory_search, memory_neighbors, memory_subgraph, memory_tag_stats, memory_graph_stats, memory_temporal_cluster. Document in each description: 'Returns up to 20 results. Use limit and offset for pagination.'
Reduce duplicate tool names. memory_link_suggest appears twice (tools 18 and 25). Audit all 44 tool names for uniqueness.
Add permission/scope hints to WRITE and DESTRUCTIVE tools. E.g., 'Requires write:memory scope' or 'Requires admin:memory_delete scope'. This clarifies least-privilege configuration for agents.
Add natural-language identifier support. Many tools refer to memory by ID. Extend to accept 'memory_key' or 'tag' as an alternative, with automatic lookup. This matches chat UX (users say 'my daily standup note', not 'memory_12345').