Retrieve memory statistics for the local long-term memory to inspect storage, indexing, and audit health.
Show memory statistics
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "mind_stats"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' weakly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but the description says nothing about scope (which memory stores are counted), cost, or the shape of the returned statistics, and there is no output schema to fill that 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?
Three words, no filler, purpose stated up front. It is arguably too terse to be useful, but nothing in the sentence is wasted or buried.
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-argument read tool this is the minimum viable description: it names the resource but not what the statistics cover (counts, sizes, types) nor when they refresh. With no annotations and no output schema, a slightly richer description would materially help an agent decide whether to call it.
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 the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool 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 ('Show memory statistics'), so an agent immediately knows this returns aggregate information rather than recalling or mutating memories. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from adjacent diagnostics siblings such as mind_doctor, mind_history, or mind_context.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to mind_doctor or mind_history, and no mention of any prerequisite state (e.g., memory must be initialized). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.