get_reset_statsCounts and gaps for resets, as on claude-resets.com: resets announced, average, median and longest gap in days, days since the last, and resets per month. With provider 'both' and no date, the window is the period in which both are tracked, the fair comparison. Limit changes never count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Start the window on this UTC date. | |
| provider | No | both |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lowered. The description adds real beyond-annotation substance: the exact set of returned metrics, the default window semantics for provider='both', and the data caveat 'Limit changes never count.'
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, metric list front-loaded, no filler. The phrasing is dense but every clause (metric enumeration, default-window rule, limit-change caveat) carries information.
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 correctly enumerates the returned statistics, and it discloses the default window and a data caveat. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., distinct meaning of 'claude' vs 'codex' windows), which are reasonably inferable.
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 coverage is only 50% ('since' is documented, 'provider' is not), so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that provider='both' without a date uses the overlap window, which is the meaningful semantic behind that enum value and its default interaction with 'since'.
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 (resets) and enumerates exactly what is computed: counts, average/median/longest gap, days since last, resets per month. This is clearly an aggregate-statistics tool, implicitly distinct from get_last_reset and list_resets, but the siblings are never named so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
It tells the agent what happens with the default (provider 'both' and no date selects the common tracked window, called out as 'the fair comparison'), which is useful context for choosing inputs. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_last_reset-or-list_resets guidance or any 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.