Summary counts of this account's hosted Wyrm Cloud memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | Yes | ||
| truths | Yes | ||
| artifacts | Yes | ||
| workspaces | Yes | ||
| open_quests | Yes | ||
| active_failures | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "active_failures": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "artifacts": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "open_quests": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "tier": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "truths": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "workspaces": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tier",
+ "truths",
+ "artifacts",
+ "open_quests",
+ "active_failures",
+ "workspaces"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Summary counts' strongly implies a read-only aggregate operation and the zero-parameter schema makes it low-risk, but the description never explicitly asserts read-only behavior or says whether counts span all workspaces or just the current context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the resource is named immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with zero params this simple stats tool needs little more. The only real gap is which dimensions the counts cover and whether they are account-wide or workspace-scoped.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the empty schema is self-consistent with a stats call.
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 resource and scope: summary counts of this account's hosted Wyrm Cloud memory. It is distinguishable from siblings like wyrm_recall or wyrm_vault_list as an aggregate-stats read, though it never clarifies what is being counted (memories vs. quests vs. both).
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the ~30 sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the tool for a high-level account overview.
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.