memory_ontology_merge_entitiesMerge drop_slug into keep_slug (remap FKs, delete duplicate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | Override agent identity | |
| drop_slug | Yes | Duplicate entity slug to merge away | |
| keep_slug | Yes | Canonical entity slug to keep |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the two material consequences — FK remapping and deletion of the duplicate — which is real value beyond the schema. Missing are reversibility, conflict-resolution behavior, and permission or transaction notes, which matters for a destructive operation. Score 3.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core operation ('Merge drop_slug into keep_slug') and appends only the essential behavioral parenthetical. No filler; every phrase earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description need not document return values. It captures the core operation and side effects, but for a destructive merge it would benefit from caveats about irreversibility and handling of conflicting properties between the two entities. Adequate with clear gaps — 3.
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 meaningful per-parameter descriptions ('Duplicate entity slug to merge away', 'Canonical entity slug to keep'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description echoes the directionality but adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Merge drop_slug into keep_slug' — with clear directionality between the canonical and duplicate entities. The parenthetical '(remap FKs, delete duplicate)' adds operational specificity that distinguishes it from the other memory_ontology_* siblings (list, propose_entity, rekind_entity). It stops short of 5 only by not explicitly naming sibling distinctions.
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?
'Delete duplicate' implies a deduplication context, giving an agent a reasonable when-to-use signal, and nothing misleading is stated. However, there are no explicit alternatives, no when-not conditions, and no prerequisites (e.g., verifying both slugs exist) before a destructive merge. That is implied guidance at best — 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).
The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.