Server exposes 5 memory-management tools with reasonable naming (verb_noun pattern) and basic schemas. However, parameter descriptions are largely absent or minimal, output schemas are undocumented, and error handling guidance is missing. Tool names are clear (ponddb_remember, ponddb_recall, ponddb_query, ponddb_forget, ponddb_feedback), but descriptions lack depth on WHEN to use each tool and what downstream actions they enable. Input schemas are present but parameters lack descriptions explaining constraints, formats, or dependencies. No evidence of pagination, result limits, or structured output documentation. Security concerns: ponddb_query accepts raw SQL with no injection guidance.

• Add parameter descriptions to all tools. For each param, specify: expected format (UUID, email, enum values), constraints (min/max, length), and examples. E.g., 'agent_id (string, UUID format): Unique identifier for the agent storing/retrieving memory.'
• Document output schemas for ponddb_recall and ponddb_query. Specify field names, types, and whether results are paginated. E.g., 'Returns: {memories: [{id, type, content, importance, created_at}], total_count, has_more}'.
• Add SQL injection guidance to ponddb_query description: 'Accepts DuckDB SQL. Sanitize user input to prevent injection. Use parameterized queries where possible.'
• Implement pagination for ponddb_recall: add 'limit' (default 20, max 100) and 'offset' parameters. Return total_count so agents know if more results exist.
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. E.g., 'ponddb_query may fail with: syntax_error (invalid SQL), timeout (query >30s), permission_denied (insufficient scope). Retry syntax errors after correcting SQL; timeout errors are retryable; permission errors require elevated scope.'