get_statsCurrent Not Human Search index stats: total sites, average agentic score, top category, sites added in the last 7 days, count of sites exposing an MCP server, and count scoring a perfect 100/100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention operational behaviors such as data freshness, caching, or response format. It does disclose the specific statistics included, which gives some transparency about content but not about side effects or performance.
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 sentence lists all available stats; it is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose.
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?
Given no output schema, the description enumerates exactly what is returned. The low complexity (zero parameters) means this is adequate, though it could mention whether stats are live or cached.
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 no parameters, with schema coverage 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline 4 for zero params.
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 clearly states the tool returns current index stats and enumerates specific metrics (total sites, average agentic score, top category, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_top_sites or recent_additions that focus on lists.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies use for aggregate overview, but no when/when-not or alternative references.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between check_url and get_site_details (both provide readiness reports) and between search_agents and find_mcp_servers (both return indexed sites). The descriptions clarify the differences, but an agent could still pick the wrong one without careful reading.
The tools mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (check_url, get_stats, submit_site), but recent_additions deviates by using an adjective_noun form, and handoff_provider_action uses a noun-like verb. These minor inconsistencies are readable but not fully uniform.
With 14 tools, the set is within the ideal range for a service of this scope. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of discovery, verification, monitoring, and provider actions, without feeling bloated or too sparse.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: searching (search_agents), browsing (find_mcp_servers, get_top_sites, recent_additions), retrieving details (get_site_details), verifying (check_url, verify_mcp), submitting (submit_site), monitoring (register_monitor), and the provider action workflow (prepare_provider_action, handoff_provider_action, record_action_interest). No obvious gaps or dead ends.