Filesystem MCP

monitor_get_memory_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get virtual and swap memory breakdown to assess system memory usage and identify resource constraints.

Instructions

Virtual and swap memory breakdown.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "result": {"virtual": {...}, "swap": {...}}}

Examples

monitor_get_memory_info()

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": "monitor_get_memory_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the virtual/swap split and a return-shape example, but does not add deeper behavioral context such as cost, latency, or scope limitations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and front-loads the purpose. The Return Format section duplicates the existing output schema, and the example call is trivial for a no-parameter tool, but neither is verbose enough to be a major flaw.

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?

Given a simple no-parameter, read-only tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. The main remaining gap is the absence of sibling differentiation against broader resource-usage tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is appropriately met.

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 clearly states the resource and scope: virtual and swap memory breakdown. It is more specific than a generic system-status call, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling monitor_get_resource_usage or monitor_get_system_status.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monitor_get_resource_usage or monitor_get_system_status. Use is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'memory breakdown'.

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