Reports the active namespace, revision count, vector support, and write availability so assistants can verify memory state before querying or appending assertions.
Report configured namespace, its revision count, vector capability, and write availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds what the response contains (namespace, revision count, vector capability, write availability), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, cost, or how 'write availability' is determined.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates exactly what is returned with zero filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so by listing the four reported values. Only 'write availability' remains vaguely defined, a minor gap for a zero-arg read-only status tool.
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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste words on parameter talk.
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 specific verb-plus-content set: it reports the configured namespace, revision count, vector capability, and write availability. That is a clear, concrete purpose distinguishable in spirit from memory_search and memory_history, though it never names the siblings to make the contrast explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: the enumerated status fields suggest a pre-flight/diagnostic check before searching or writing. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no routing to memory_search or memory_history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.