Retrieve storage counts of nodes by status and raw T3 text entries from the local SQLite memory store.
Storage stats: node counts by status, raw T3 text count.
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": "stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does signal a read-only inspection operation and names the returned metrics, which is real value. However, it says nothing about cost or scope (does it scan the whole store?), whether 'T3' is a namespace/storage tier, or how the counts are keyed.
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?
A single front-loaded line with no filler; the resource name leads and the payload follows. Minor deduction because 'raw T3 text count' is unexplained jargon that a reader cannot resolve from the description alone.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema. It falls short only on the meaning of the 'raw T3 text' metric and on result shape details.
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 nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space on a parameter discussion.
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 resource (storage stats) and enumerates what it reports: node counts by status and raw T3 text count. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling memory operations (recall/forget/remember/get_node), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 infer this is the tool for inspection/aggregate counts rather than retrieval. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.