List active analysis rules with ID, title, severity, and category to see which memory profiling checks are enabled. Adjust them via .memorylens.json for customized analysis.
Lists all active analysis rules with their ID, title, severity, and category. Rules can be configured via .memorylens.json in the project root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior and specifies the configuration file location, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., empty list, error states).
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?
The description consists of two focused sentences, the first stating the tool's purpose and the second providing configuration context. Every sentence is essential and there is no redundancy.
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?
For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it specifies the output fields and the source of rules. Minor improvement could be noting that the list reflects current active configuration.
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?
Since there are zero parameters (baseline 4), the description adds value by explaining the output fields and the configuration file location, which is not evident from the empty input schema.
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?
The description uses the verb 'Lists' and specifies the resource 'active analysis rules', clearly communicating the tool's function. It also mentions the output fields (ID, title, severity, category), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_processes or snapshot.
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?
The description implies usage when one needs to see available analysis rules, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.