get_statisticsWhat the database sees right now: reports in the last 24 hours, addresses on the blocklist, and over the last 30 days the top attack categories, countries, networks and highest-scoring addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what is visible in the snapshot and its time windows, but it does not discuss caching, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the statistics are live versus periodically refreshed.
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the snapshot nature and then enumerates the return contents. Every phrase carries useful information, with no filler or repetition.
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-only statistics tool with no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the main return categories and time horizons. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether top lists are limited or ranked, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
This tool has no input parameters, so the baseline expectation is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics and focuses on the returned statistical scope instead.
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 this returns current abuse statistics: reports in the last 24 hours, blocklist size, and 30-day top categories, countries, networks, and high-scoring addresses. It distinguishes itself from detailed siblings like get_reports and get_blocklist by being an aggregate snapshot, though it never names those alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied: this is the dashboard-style overview tool, while siblings provide detailed reports or blocklist data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct routing to alternative tools for deeper analysis.
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.