memory_statusCheck the local encrypted vault's health: lock state, entry counts, memory packs, model, index, RAM use, and audit head, so you can confirm stored agent memory is intact and accessible.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the snapshot contains (audit head, index, RAM, model), but says nothing about cost, freshness, or whether the call can fail when the vault is locked.
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?
One short fragment, front-loaded with the subject and then the payload fields. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic comma-list style reads as a label rather than a sentence and slightly hurts scannability.
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?
With no parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that already defines the return shape, the description's job is small and it mostly meets it by naming the reported facets. A single clause on when to reach for it (e.g. instead of memory_selftest) would close the remaining gap.
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 4 applies since no parameter semantics are required.
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 names the resource (the vault) and enumerates the concrete facets reported: lock state, counts, packs, model, index, RAM, audit head. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from memory_lock/memory_unlock (state changers) and memory_selftest (test runner). It stops short of a verb phrase like 'returns a snapshot of', but the intent is unambiguous.
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 statement of when to call this versus siblings — nothing says to use it as a pre-flight health check before memory_search, or to prefer memory_selftest for diagnostics or memory_lock for state changes. Usage is only inferable from the word 'status' and the list of diagnostics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.