Skip to main content
Glama

get_memory_bank_status

Retrieve the current status of the memory bank on the MCP server with SSH support. Use this tool to monitor and verify the central knowledge base's operational state.

Instructions

Check Memory Bank status

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
random_stringYesDummy parameter for no-parameter tools

Implementation Reference

  • Implements the core logic for the get_memory_bank_status tool by retrieving the Memory Bank status via memoryBankManager.getStatus() and returning it as formatted JSON, with error handling.
    export async function handleGetMemoryBankStatus(
      memoryBankManager: MemoryBankManager
    ) {
      try {
        const status = await memoryBankManager.getStatus();
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: JSON.stringify(status, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: `Error checking Memory Bank status: ${error}`,
            },
          ],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
    }
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema (using a dummy required parameter). This is part of the coreTools array exported for registration.
    {
      name: 'get_memory_bank_status',
      description: 'Check Memory Bank status',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          random_string: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Dummy parameter for no-parameter tools',
          },
        },
        required: ['random_string'],
      },
    },
  • Dispatches the tool call to the handler function after checking if Memory Bank directory exists, part of the MCP server tool request handler.
    case 'get_memory_bank_status': {
      if (!memoryBankManager.getMemoryBankDir()) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: 'Memory Bank not found. Use initialize_memory_bank to create one.',
            },
          ],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
      return handleGetMemoryBankStatus(memoryBankManager);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('check') without detailing what the check entails (e.g., read-only operation, potential side effects, error handling, or response format). For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise ('Check Memory Bank status'), consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying the core action and target efficiently.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a status-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'status' includes, how results are returned, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full scope and usage without additional inference.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, documenting it as a 'Dummy parameter for no-parameter tools'. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond this, which is acceptable since the schema fully covers the parameter. With 0 meaningful parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description need not compensate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Check Memory Bank status' clearly states the action (check) and target (Memory Bank status), avoiding tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'status' entails (e.g., operational state, usage metrics, or configuration) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_current_mode' or 'debug_mcp_config', which might overlap in monitoring functions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_current_mode' and 'debug_mcp_config' that could relate to system status, the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aakarsh-sasi/memory-bank-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server