Retrieve document storage statistics to track knowledge base size, document counts, and storage usage.
Document storage statistics
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": "knowledge_document_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. Beyond the word 'statistics' hinting at a read-only aggregate, it says nothing about permissions, scope (all documents vs. a session), cost, or what dimensions are counted.
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?
Three words with no filler, and the subject is front-loaded, so it is structurally clean. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification — brevity here comes from omitted information, not from tight writing.
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 output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about this tool, and it does not say what statistics are returned or in what form. For a stats endpoint whose entire value is its return shape, this is insufficient.
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 no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither misleads nor needs to compensate for an under-documented schema.
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 phrase 'Document storage statistics' names the resource (documents) and the kind of output (statistics), but supplies no verb and no scope. An agent can guess it is a read of aggregate document metrics, yet the description does not distinguish it from siblings like knowledge_list_documents, system_stats, or memory_stats.
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 instead of knowledge_list_documents, system_stats, or memory_stats. The sibling set contains several stats-like tools, so the absence of any routing cue is a real gap rather than a minor omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.