Check the current session's cognitive state to confirm context before continuing: returns a summary of active plans, retained memory, and compliance signals.
Cognitive status summary for the current session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_root | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / project_rootAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 4096,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is read-only, what it returns, whether it is cheap or expensive, or whether it depends on session/bootstrap state (e.g., bootstrap_session). For an unannotated tool that is a serious gap.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, but the brevity here comes from under-specification rather than discipline; the one sentence does not carry enough information to earn its place as the entire definition.
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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain what the summary contains and what project_root does. It does none of that, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or call semantics.
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 single parameter project_root has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. Whether the root selects the session, is optional (required list is empty), or affects the returned status is left entirely to guesswork, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
The description largely restates the name: 'cognitive_status' becomes 'Cognitive status summary.' The only added information is the scope phrase 'for the current session,' and the term 'cognitive status' is never defined, so an agent cannot tell what data would actually come back or how this differs from siblings like memory_stats, system_stats, or decision_health.
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 guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer among the many status/stats tools (memory_stats, system_stats, decision_health, task_summary). 'For the current session' hints at scope but gives no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.