Flush write-ahead logs, vacuum, and optimize database performance to prevent bloat and ensure efficient memory retrieval.
Execute WAL flush, vacuum, and performance optimization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operations performed, but does not disclose side effects, whether vacuum alters data, potential performance impact, or any authorization requirements. This leaves an agent under-informed about the consequences of calling 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the intended benefit.
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?
The tool is simple—no parameters and an output schema is present—so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it still lacks any guidance about when maintenance should be performed and what operational effects to expect, leaving it minimally complete but not fully informative.
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 and the schema already fully describes this fact. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter semantics to add.
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 names concrete operations (WAL flush, vacuum, performance optimization) and clearly identifies this as a database maintenance tool, distinguishing it from memory/graph sibling tools. It does not explicitly state the resource, but the tool name plus these operations make the intent clear.
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 guidance is provided on when to run a checkpoint or how to decide between this tool and alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals to help an agent decide whether this maintenance action is appropriate at a given time.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.