memory_statusInspect the current status of the memory vault: lock state, object counts, packs, model, index, RAM usage, and audit head position.
Vault status: lock state, counts, packs, model, index, RAM, audit head.
| 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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful inventory of status fields, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool can be called while the vault is locked, whether it has side effects beyond observation, or whether it requires special permissions.
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 extremely compact and front-loaded, using a fragment that immediately signals 'Vault status.' Every listed item adds information, though some terms like 'counts' and 'packs' are terse enough to require the output schema for full clarity.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It enumerates the main status areas an agent needs to anticipate, but it leaves contextual details like when this status is useful and what 'packs' or 'counts' refer to to the output schema.
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 parameter semantics are naturally satisfied. The description and schema need not explain parameter meaning, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 resource (Vault) and enumerates the status dimensions returned: lock state, counts, packs, model, index, RAM, and audit head. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'displays,' and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the meaning is unmistakable.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_get, memory_search, or memory_lock. The description only states what status data is shown, leaving the invocation context entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.