memory_statusCheck RAM usage and capacity by retrieving total, used, and available physical memory on local Windows and Linux hosts.
Return total, used and available physical memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| freeBytes | Yes | ||
| usedBytes | Yes | ||
| totalBytes | Yes | ||
| usagePercent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only return fields, which the output schema likely covers, and discloses no additional behavioral context such as permissions or rate limits.
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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the resource and returned metrics. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only tool. It is clear enough to invoke correctly, though it could mention sibling alternatives like system_info for better routing.
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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly adds no misleading input information.
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 verb and resource: return total, used and available physical memory. Clear what it does. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like system_info, which may also expose memory details, so not a full 5.
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 implied by the resource and sibling naming, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent can infer it for memory status, but must decide on its own versus system_info or system_health.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.