memory_selftestRuns canned health-check queries against the built-in seed pack and reports latencies, letting you verify the memory vault is working.
Health check: canned queries against the built-in seed pack, with latencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the important detail that the queries run against a built-in seed pack (i.e., isolated from real stored data) and that results include latencies. It does not say whether the test touches the live namespace or how long it takes, which would be useful for a diagnostic call.
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 — 'Health check' comes first, followed by mechanics and output. Slightly too terse to carry differentiation from siblings, but every clause 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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. What's missing is the operational picture: whether the self-test is isolated from live data, its expected cost, and how it relates to memory_status. For a low-complexity tool this is adequate but not complete.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline is 4 for a no-param tool.
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+resource: a health check that runs canned queries against a built-in seed pack and returns latencies. That is concrete and far better than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_status, which an agent would reasonably consider the other diagnostic tool.
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?
'Health check' implies a diagnostic context, so when to use it is inferable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over memory_status, or whether it should be run before/after other memory operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.