data_memory_statusCheck what the Data Memory holds, which folders feed it, and when each was last read to verify memory sources and freshness.
What the Data Memory holds, which folders feed it, and when they were last read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the substance of what is reported (contents, source folders, last-read times), implying an inspection operation, but never states that it is read-only, side-effect free, or how 'last read' is determined. No contradiction, just thin.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the three content elements are listed in a sensible order. It loses a point only because the fragment form makes it read like a title continuation rather than a complete statement of behavior.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (zero params, output schema present) and the description names the reported facets, which is close to sufficient. However, for a status/inspection tool with no annotations, it should at minimum assert that it is a read-only snapshot and not a scan trigger, especially next to data_memory_scan.
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 of 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.
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?
Names the resource (Data Memory) and enumerates what it reports: contents, feeding folders, and last-read timestamps. That is more specific than the bare name, but the sentence is a noun fragment with no verb and does not distinguish it from siblings like data_memory, data_memory_scan, or data_memory_dataset.
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 data_memory, data_memory_scan, or data_memory_dataset, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The use case (inspecting what the memory contains before querying it) must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.