Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
epsilongraph

epsilongraph

by silverenternal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

vault_stats

Report index size, layer and provenance distribution, and freshness so you can verify knowledge graph coverage and staleness before querying.

Instructions

Index size, layer and provenance distribution, and freshness.

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": "vault_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing beyond the return metrics. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the key return categories.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a no-parameter, read-only stats tool, the description lists the returned metrics but omits details about format (e.g., counts vs percentages) and does not clarify domain-specific terms like 'layer' and 'provenance'. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document in the description. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no misleading parameter information.

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 metrics returned: index size, layer and provenance distribution, and freshness. It distinguishes from siblings by being a read-only stats report rather than a search or retrieval action. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', so it stops just short of the top score.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The implied usage is to obtain vault statistics, but the description gives no context about prerequisites or conditions that select it over siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools