PRO — catalog intelligence: per-type counts, stories-per-year, and the top tags by reach across the network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does 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. The description usefully adds scope ("across the network") and the specific aggregate metrics returned, but says nothing about the PRO gating, cost, or freshness of the statistics.
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 listing the metrics with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by naming a distinct output dimension.
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 must convey what comes back, and it does list the three metric families. For a zero-required-parameter read-only tool this is close to sufficient, missing only granularity/scope qualifiers such as time window or filtering.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'context' parameter is documented exhaustively in the schema (purpose, non-use for ranking, failure-diagnosis use). The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable given the schema carries the full burden.
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 the resource (catalog stats) and enumerates the concrete outputs: per-type counts, stories-per-year, and top tags by reach. That lets an agent distinguish it from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with the plausibly overlapping get_overview or get_timeline.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent must guess whether catalog-level aggregates belong here or in get_overview.
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.