Game Stats AI

get_attribute_report

Read-only

Show an attribute report

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_attribute_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The report ID.
`page`	No	Page of report rows to return (1-based, defaults to 1). The response `pagination` object reports the current `page`, total row `count`, and total number of `pages`; request pages 1..`pages` to read the full report.
`threshold`	No	Minimum and maximum bounds for the report threshold filter, as [min, max].
`version_id`	No	Filter to one or more game version IDs. Discover valid IDs from the `filters` in the response.
`event_type_id`	No	Filter to one or more event type IDs. Discover valid IDs from the `filters` in the response.
`occurred_after`	No	Only include data from the last N days. Allowed values: 1, 7, 30.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of the response shape (rows plus a pagination/filters object), no auth or scope notes, no statement that results are filterable server-side.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

At four words it is maximally short and front-loaded, with zero filler. However, that brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing — the single sentence conveys no actionable information beyond the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a six-parameter, paginated retrieval tool with a required id and server-side filter dimensions, and the description explains none of it. Even allowing for the rich schema and the annotations, an agent has no basis to confirm it is calling the right report tool or to anticipate the paginated row/filters response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the six parameters — id, page, threshold, version_id, event_type_id, occurred_after — is documented in the schema itself, including pagination and filter-discovery hints. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema carries the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Show an attribute report" only restates the tool name (get_attribute_report) with a slightly different verb. It gives no indication of what an attribute report contains, what scope it covers, or how it differs from the many sibling report tools (get_character_attribute_report, list_attribute_reports, run_report).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. Nothing tells the agent whether this retrieves an existing saved report versus generating one, or when to prefer it over run_report, get_character_attribute_report, or list_attribute_reports.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Game Stats AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?