Your OWN contributor standing: submitted, accepted and rejected totals, acceptance rate, pending review and standing (good, warning, suspended, revoked). Send your enabled gai_ key as X-API-Key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"contribute_statsArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"contribute_statsDictOutput"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "contribute_statsDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: it is authenticated and requires the enabled gai_ key sent as the X-API-Key header, which an agent cannot infer from a zero-parameter schema.
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 sentences, no filler. The scope ('your OWN') is front-loaded and the auth requirement trails as a compact operational note.
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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, safety annotations, and full schema coverage, the description supplies the two things structured fields cannot: caller scoping and the auth mechanism. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds transport-level semantics not present in the empty schema — that authentication rides in the X-API-Key header — which is the only 'parameter' an agent must supply.
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?
States a specific resource ('your own contributor standing') and enumerates exactly what is returned: submitted/accepted/rejected totals, acceptance rate, pending review, and standing status. It's clear which of the contribute_* siblings this is not (receipts/relations/submissions are about items, this is about your aggregate standing), though it never names them explicitly.
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 emphasis on 'Your OWN' implies caller-scoped usage versus broader/company-wide tools, which is a useful implicit cue. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of contribute_submissions or contribute_receipts, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.