memory_statusCheck your Keephaven agent identity, write access, and quota usage to confirm permissions and capacity before reading or writing notes.
Who you are on this Keephaven, whether you can write, and how much of your quota is used.
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that the tool reports write capability and quota consumption, though it does not detail authentication requirements or exact response fields.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant text. It front-loads the main status dimensions the agent would care about.
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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key information an agent needs: identity, write permission, and quota usage. It does not specify exact return fields or formatting, but no output schema exists to carry that detail.
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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema is empty and needs no additional explanation.
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?
The description identifies the status report's contents: current identity, write permission, and quota usage. It is more specific than the tool name, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'reports' and does not directly differentiate itself from 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?
Usage is implied by the listed contents: an agent would use this when it needs to know its identity, whether writes are allowed, or remaining quota. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives like memory_read or memory_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.