Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Engram

Engram

by HBarefoot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

engram_status

Report Engram health and memory statistics, including counts by category, embedding model status, database location, and configuration settings.

Instructions

Report Engram health and statistics. Read-only and parameter-free. Returns: memory counts by category and namespace, embedding-model status (name, cached/loaded state, size), the database location, and key config (default namespace, recall limit, confidence threshold, secret-detection on/off). Use as a diagnostics/health check — to confirm the model is loaded and see how many memories exist — before relying on recall.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "engram_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses read-only nature, no parameters, and details return fields: memory counts, embedding-model status, database location, key config. Highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise with front-loaded purpose, then detailed listing of returns, ending with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Complete for a health-check tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters; baseline is 4. Description adds value by confirming parameter-free and documenting what information is returned, which is more than just the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reports Engram health and statistics, is read-only and parameter-free. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a diagnostics/health check, not performing memory operations like recall or remember.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use as a diagnostics/health check — to confirm the model is loaded and see how many memories exist — before relying on recall.' Provides clear when-to-use context and implies engram_recall as alternative, but could more explicitly list when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools