memory_statsCounts stored knowledge by project and kind, checks embedder and database health, and verifies the local memory store is reachable so you know what exists before searching.
Counts per project and kind, plus embedder and database health. Use to verify the store is reachable and to see what knowledge exists before searching blindly.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: this is a lightweight reachability/health probe with zero parameters and no mutation, which tells the agent it can call it cheaply as a pre-flight check.
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?
Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the output, the second the use case. Front-loaded and free of filler.
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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what the counts are grouped by (project, kind) and that health/embedder status is included. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.
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 for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics that don't exist.
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 concrete verb and result set: 'Counts per project and kind, plus embedder and database health.' An agent can tell immediately that this is a diagnostic/aggregate tool, distinct from the record-level siblings like memory_get, memory_list, and memory_search.
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?
'Use to verify the store is reachable and to see what knowledge exists before searching blindly' gives clear when-to-use conditions and implicitly points at memory_search as the alternative that shouldn't be invoked blindly. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative tool, so not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.