doctor_memoryCheck memory health by reporting duplicate, deleted, expired, conclusion, and invalid-record counts plus index health, without changing data.
Report duplicate, deleted, expired, conclusion, invalid-record, and index health counts without changing data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'without changing data', which aligns with and reinforces the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds value by explicitly clarifying the non-mutating behavior, which is a key behavioral guarantee for an agent deciding to invoke it.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise and covers the essential categories without waste. It could be slightly more structured but is quite efficient.
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 diagnostic tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lists all major health categories and assures non-mutation. It lacks an explicit output format, but the categories imply what will be reported, which is adequate.
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 schema offers no parameter semantics. The description compensates well by listing the specific categories of counts it reports, providing clear meaning about what the tool returns even without an output schema.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('memory store') and lists the categories of health counts it provides. It distinguishes itself by focusing on diagnostics rather than modification, which differentiates it from most sibling tools that manage or modify 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 the tool's use for reporting health statuses without explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over audit_memory or get_memory_snapshot, but the diagnostic focus is clear enough for an agent to infer its purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.