Retrieve cache hit, miss, and policy statistics for a specific collection's L0 Hot Tier Cache to monitor performance and diagnose caching issues.
Get cache statistics (hits, misses, policy, etc.) for a specific collection's L0 Hot Tier Cache. Returns stats object as JSON result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | Yes | The name of the collection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does signal a non-mutating read ('Get') and discloses the return form ('stats object as JSON result'), which is useful. It says nothing about cost, permissions, or whether reading stats has any effect on cache state, leaving moderate gaps for an annotation-free tool.
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 short sentences with no filler; the scope (specific collection's L0 Hot Tier Cache) is front-loaded. It could be slightly denser by folding the return-value note into the scope sentence, but nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter read tool this covers the essentials: what it returns and at what scope. With no output schema, however, the description should say more about the stats object's shape or stability, and it doesn't clarify the relationship to the sibling statistics/config tools.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents 'collection' fully. The description adds the useful nuance that stats are scoped to a single collection rather than global, but gives no format hints (case sensitivity, exact-name matching) beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get cache statistics (hits, misses, policy, etc.)' scoped to 'a specific collection's L0 Hot Tier Cache'. This is clearly distinct from generic siblings, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from hyperspace_get_stats or hyperspace_cache_config, leaving the agent to infer which stats tool applies.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can guess this is for inspecting cache performance for a collection. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of when to prefer hyperspace_get_stats (general stats) or hyperspace_cache_config (configuration) instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.