Monitor memory system health: get point counts by source/role, pending predictions, date range, and Q-cache size.
Get memory system health: point counts by source/role, pending predictions, date range, Q-cache size
| 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 full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' and the term 'health' strongly imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state 'no side effects', auth needs, or output size. It does add value by listing what stats are returned.
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 that front-loads the action and immediately defines the return scope. Every phrase adds useful information: source/role, pending predictions, date range, and Q-cache size.
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 parameterless health-check tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context about what is returned. It could be more explicit about the output shape or any naming conventions of the metrics, but the listed categories give an agent a solid starting point.
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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level semantics. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; no further parameter information is necessary.
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 ('Get') and resource ('memory system health') and enumerates the returned categories: point counts by source/role, pending predictions, date range, Q-cache size. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_memory and add_memory.
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?
The description implies a monitoring/health-check use case and the sibling names suggest alternatives, but it never explicitly states when to use it instead of search_memory, add_memory, log_prediction, or log_outcome. Agents must infer the distinction from the term 'health'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.