Return summary stats of how this MCP server has been used (top tools called, success rate, recent activity). Free. Use to verify your own integration is hitting the right tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'Free' and 'summary stats,' indicating read-only access, but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
The description is two concise sentences. The first clearly defines the output, the second provides practical usage guidance. Every phrase adds value, with no wasted words.
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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what is returned and how to use it. It could mention whether stats are live or cached, but overall is complete enough for an agent.
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 has no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% and the description focuses on output rather than inputs.
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 it returns summary stats of MCP server usage, listing specific metrics (top tools called, success rate, recent activity). It distinguishes itself from siblings like install_snippets or pricing_info by focusing on usage analytics.
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 description explicitly advises use for 'verifying your own integration is hitting the right tools,' providing a clear context. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios.
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.
list_endpoints and pricing_info overlap heavily—both surface pricing information, and an agent could easily pick the wrong one. The other three tools are more distinct, but this pair introduces real ambiguity.
The naming is readable but mixes styles: install_snippets and list_endpoints follow a verb_noun pattern, while pricing_info, usage_stats, and wallet_helper are noun-heavy labels. No chaotic mixing, but no strong consistent convention.
Five tools is a reasonable number for a small gateway server, and none feel entirely superfluous. There is minor redundancy between the two pricing-related tools, but the overall count is well-scoped.
The server describes itself as a gateway to paid endpoints, yet provides no tool to actually call any paid endpoint—only meta helpers for installation, discovery, pricing, usage, and wallet setup. This leaves agents unable to perform the server's core function.