Inspect in-memory cache metrics including hits, misses, entry count, and hit rate percentage to verify caching performance and confirm cache hits.
Returns in-memory cache metrics including total cache hits, misses, current entry count, and hit rate percentage. Use to inspect caching performance and verify cache hits.
| 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 burden. It implies a passive read ('Returns', 'inspect') and the zero-parameter schema means there is no destructive surface, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, side effects, or that metrics are in-memory and reset per process.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields. The second sentence's 'verify cache hits' slightly overlaps with 'inspect caching performance', but the text is otherwise tight and waste-free.
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 and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics, which is the key information needed. It is adequate for a trivial zero-parameter read tool, though a note on read-only/side-effect-free behavior would close the remaining gap.
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 of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter detail.
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 ('Returns in-memory cache metrics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (hits, misses, entry count, hit rate). This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the git-oriented sibling tools.
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?
Gives clear usage context: 'Use to inspect caching performance and verify cache hits.' No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is offered, but none of the siblings overlap with a cache-metrics tool, so the omission is low-impact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.