Show memory counts by namespace and kind along with database size, so you can check quota before bulk adds.
Show memory counts by namespace/kind plus database size. Use to check quota before bulk adds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-devDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the returned content (per-namespace/kind counts plus DB size) and implying it is a cheap, safe pre-flight call.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the content of the report front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so reasonably (counts by namespace/kind, database size). It stops short of mentioning output format or units, but for a no-argument read tool this is nearly complete.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the schema is empty and 100% covered. Baseline 4 applies, and the description correctly does not invent parameters.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource (memory_stats) and enumerates exactly what it reports: counts by namespace/kind plus database size. This is clearly distinct from the sibling mutation/search/profile tools.
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?
"Use to check quota before bulk adds" gives an explicit, actionable when-to-use tied to the add_memory sibling. It doesn't name an alternative, but no sibling reports stats, so there is little to disambiguate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.