memory_selftestRun a health check to verify storage and retrieval work correctly by executing standard queries against built-in sample data, reporting response latencies.
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it executes canned queries against a built-in seed pack and surfaces latencies. No side effects or caveats are hidden, and nothing contradicts the annotations.
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 is a single tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Health check') and then gives the mechanism and observable output. Every word 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?
For a tool with no parameters, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema already present, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what kind of result to expect without unnecessary elaboration.
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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a health check that runs canned queries against the built-in seed pack and reports latencies. It is distinguishable from the memory storage/retrieval siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar-sounding memory_status.
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 guidance is given about when to run this self-test versus alternatives such as memory_status or other diagnostic commands. The context implies a health-check use case, but the description leaves the selection criteria unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.