MemHeaven

mempalace_graph_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve tenant-scoped graph, shared-room, and explicit tunnel statistics to monitor memory connections and usage across your AI agent environment.

Instructions

Return tenant-scoped graph, shared-room, and explicit tunnel statistics.

Tool call template

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": "mempalace_graph_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top_tunnels`	Yes
`total_edges`	Yes
`total_rooms`	Yes
`tunnel_rooms`	Yes
`rooms_per_wing`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Return statistics' is consistent with these, and adds the 'tenant-scoped' scoping constraint. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as response format or potential side effects, beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Return tenant-scoped graph, shared-room, and explicit tunnel statistics.' Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for a no-argument tool. It specifies the scope and categories of statistics. The only minor gap is potential ambiguity around the term 'graph', but overall it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to describe. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Return') and specifies three stat categories: tenant-scoped graph, shared-room, and explicit tunnel statistics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mempalace_kg_stats and mempalace_list_tunnels, though the term 'graph' could be ambiguous without more context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mempalace_kg_stats or mempalace_list_tunnels. The usage context is only implied by the stat categories listed, with no explicit exclusions or alternative references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.