statusDisplays project root, store paths, memory/todo/worklog counts, git state, and limits so you can verify setup or debug missing recalled context.
Show the detected project root, store paths, memory/todo/worklog counts, git state, and limits. Use when setting up the server or debugging why nothing is recalled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a diagnostic/passive inspection tool rather than a data operation, but says nothing about output format, cost, or whether it touches the filesystem or git subprocess in ways that could be slow.
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?
Two sentences: the first front-loads the reported contents, the second the usage triggers. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the response contains, which is the key information an agent needs to decide to call it. Minor gap: it doesn't signal the response shape (structured JSON vs. human-readable text) for parsing purposes.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies, and the description correctly implies a no-argument 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 verb ("Show") and then enumerates exactly what is reported: project root, store paths, memory/todo/worklog counts, git state, and limits. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (remember/recall/forget/todo/log_work), which all operate on memory data rather than reporting server state.
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?
Gives two concrete triggering conditions: server setup and debugging why nothing is recalled. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool the selection guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.