Retrieve FSB memory system statistics, including total count, type breakdown, and storage usage, to understand how much it has learned from past sessions.
Get FSB memory system statistics including total count, type breakdown, and storage usage. Use to understand how much FSB has learned from past sessions.
| 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 is implicitly a read-only aggregate query and discloses what is returned, which is helpful, but it says nothing about cost, permissions, or whether the counts are scoped/filtered — thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage note. Tight and waste-free, though the second sentence is more soft framing than load-bearing information.
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, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (total count, type breakdown, storage usage), which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The remaining gap is the absence of any sibling routing against search_memory.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics the description could add or omit.
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 (FSB memory system statistics) and enumerates the return content: total count, type breakdown, storage usage. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_memory, which is the nearest related tool, so it stops short of a 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?
"Use to understand how much FSB has learned from past sessions" gives an implied context for when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative search_memory for inspecting actual memory contents rather than aggregate stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.