Check current context status to see token usage and available capacity within the memory window. Determine when to compress context for efficient long-term memory management.
[LCM] 查看当前上下文状态
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxTokens | No | 上下文窗口大小 (默认 200000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the name with a view/status phrasing; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what the response contains, or how the maxTokens parameter affects behavior. No contradiction exists because no annotations are provided.
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?
The definition is a single short sentence with no filler or repetition, and the key action is front-loaded. It is trim, though the brevity causes information loss in other dimensions.
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?
For a simple status tool with one optional parameter, the description names the outcome (view status) but does not say what fields or state are returned or what maxTokens is used for. No output schema exists, so that gap is noticeable but not disabling.
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?
The input schema covers maxTokens 100%, including a default and a Chinese description '上下文窗口大小 (默认 200000)'. The tool description adds nothing about how maxTokens changes the status calculation, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.
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?
The description names a concrete operation ('查看' / view) and a specific resource ('当前上下文状态' / current context status), so an agent knows what action to invoke. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like lcm_compact or lcm_list_summaries, so it stops short of a top score.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus lcm_compact, lcm_list_summaries, or lcm_search. The verb implies a status-check use case, but the description never states exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.