Show project memory statistics so coding agents can monitor stored facts, topics, and handoff progress. Use it to check local SQLite memory store usage before search, add, or regenerate actions.
Get project memory statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about what statistics are returned, whether the call is scoped to a single project or all projects, or whether authentication is required. Significant gaps for a 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of its missing detail rather than a sign of completeness.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented optional parameter, the definition is under-specified for what it returns and how scoping works. An agent cannot predict the response shape or the effect of omitting 'project'.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'project' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. Critically, the description does not clarify that 'project' is optional or what happens when it is omitted (e.g., aggregate across all projects), leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.
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 ('Get') and resource ('project memory statistics'), which is understandable on its own and reasonably distinct from siblings like memory_search or memory_add. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the other memory_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus memory_search, memory_topics, or memory_recent, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.