mcp-memory-graph

memory_health

Read-only

Assess memory graph health by reviewing live, retired, and stale counts, aging buckets, unresolved conflicts, and webhook delivery status. Returns an ok or attention status with reasons.

Instructions

Store health report: live/retired/stale counts, aging buckets, unresolved conflicts, and webhook delivery health, rolled up to a single ok|attention status with reasons. Read-only; optionally scoped.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "memory_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	Memory scope for isolation
`namespace`	No	Namespace within scope (e.g., project name, team name)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.6.4Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds that the output is a rolled-up status with reasons, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Context is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key components clearly. No wasted words or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description effectively conveys the return value (counts, buckets, conflicts, webhook health, status with reasons). It covers the essential aspects for a simple tool with two optional parameters. Minor gap: does not explain the 'reasons' in detail, but still sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (scope and namespace), so the description adds minimal new meaning: it hints at optional scoping but does not elaborate beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a health report for memory, listing specific metrics (live/retired/stale counts, aging buckets, unresolved conflicts, webhook delivery health) and notes it rolls up to a status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_stats, which is more general.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, such as memory_stats or memory_insights, the description does not provide context for when this tool is preferred or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server