get_memory_historyRetrieve historical memory usage data from iKuai routers by time granularity to analyze trends, diagnose performance issues, and track resource consumption.
获取内存历史使用数据
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datetype | No | 时间粒度 "day-5min" / "hour-1min" / "week-30min" | day-5min |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond restating the tool name — no note on retention window, sampling limits, or what the granularity setting implies for the response. For a metrics-history tool where data freshness and time coverage matter, this is a gap.
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 front-loaded phrase with zero filler. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than being genuinely well-shaped for an agent.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool takes one optional parameter with a documented default. The remaining gap is that the description says nothing about time scope or how the data is windowed, which is meaningful context for interpreting history metrics.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the datetype parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the "day-5min" / "hour-1min" / "week-30min" granularity values). The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ("获取内存历史使用数据" = retrieve memory historical usage data), so the agent knows it reads historical RAM/memory utilization. There is no direct memory-monitoring sibling to disambiguate from, but it also doesn't scope what memory or over what time span.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is for viewing past memory consumption rather than current state, and there is no pointer to a live-memory or system-overview tool if that is what the user wants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.