context-saver-mcp

Gateway status & token accounting

cs_status

Monitor downstream server connections, loaded tools, and live token savings by comparing current context use with direct connections.

Instructions

Show downstream servers and connection states, loaded tools, and live token-savings accounting for this session (context used vs. direct connections).

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": "cs_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`verbose`	No	Include the full catalog with token estimates

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is reported, which is useful, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether listing servers actually opens connections, whether results are cached, or what the return shape looks like — meaningful gaps for a status tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One tightly packed sentence that front-loads the primary outputs (servers and connection states) before the secondary accounting detail. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

For a simple single-optional-parameter status tool with no output schema, the enumeration of reported content is close to sufficient. It stops short of describing the response structure or how to interpret the token-savings figures, which would fully close the gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the verbose flag or explains how token estimates change with it, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Show") and enumerates the actual resources: downstream servers, connection states, loaded tools, and token-savings accounting. An agent can easily distinguish this observational tool from the action-oriented siblings (cs_call, cs_load, cs_unload), though the description never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied — an agent infers this is the tool to call when it needs to inspect gateway state or check token consumption. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer it over cs_discover or cs_plan, and no stated preconditions.

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

Deploy Server