Retrieve scope counts, provider state, and aggregate database metrics including latency, errors, and import statistics.
Scope counts, provider state, and database-wide aggregate latency/error/import metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | ||
| namespace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations already convey that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, but it also does not contradict the annotations.
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 that covers the main metric categories without extraneous words. It is easy to parse and front-loads the tool's purpose.
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 description enumerates the kinds of metrics returned but does not specify the output shape or provider-state details, and there is no output schema. It is enough to attempt a call, especially with no required parameters, but the return format remains underspecified.
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 two optional parameters, project and namespace, are named clearly but the description does not explain how they affect results. With 0% schema description coverage, the text should have compensated by describing filtering or scoping behavior, which it does not.
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 lists the resource's output areas—scope counts, provider state, and aggregate latency/error/import metrics—so the tool's purpose is evident. It is distinct from sibling memory tools by focusing on statistics rather than individual entries or operations.
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 does not state when to call this tool instead of the many sibling tools, nor does it explain whether project/namespace arguments are needed for scoped versus database-wide stats. No alternative or selection guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.