memory_statsSummarize stored interaction counts, preference and lesson totals, database size, timestamp ranges, and profile sections. Use it to audit local AI memory.
Summarize memory usage: interaction counts by kind, preference/lesson totals, DB file size, oldest/newest interaction timestamps, and profile sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Summarize' clearly implies a non-mutating read-style operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it describe any other behavioral details like cost or freshness.
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 description is a single concise sentence that leads with the core action and then enumerates the exact delivered statistics. Every word adds useful information, with no filler or redundancy.
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 serves as the sole source of return-value expectations, and it enumerates counts, totals, file size, timestamps, and profile sections. Some terms like 'profile sections' remain somewhat vague, but for a simple zero-parameter stats tool this is reasonably 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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description reasonably focuses on the output content instead.
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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and identifies a clear resource (memory usage) with a detailed list of metrics included in the output. It is distinct from sibling tools in content, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
The description implies this tool is for retrieving high-level memory statistics and summaries rather than detailed records or management actions. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.