statsDisplays database path, active embedding model, collection count, and totals so you can verify server health and model before diagnosing empty search results.
Show database path, embedding model/provider, collection count, and totals. Useful for verifying the server is healthy and which model is active before diagnosing empty search results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing exactly what information the call yields, which matters since there is no output schema, though it says nothing about cost, pagination, or failure modes (harmless for a zero-arg stat read).
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the returned-fields summary is front-loaded before the use case. 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields an agent gets back, plus the health-check use case. For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.
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 ('Show') and enumerates the exact resources returned: database path, embedding model/provider, collection count, and totals. The scope is clearly server-level rather than collection-level, but it never names or contrasts itself with the overlapping sibling list_collections, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Gives a concrete when-to-use context: verifying server health and the active model before diagnosing empty search results. That is a clear scenario, but no exclusions or explicit alternative tools (e.g., list_collections) are mentioned, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.