admin_mcp_stats
MCP call volume + top tools + top agents in the last 7 days.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Lodi Kids Activities
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, performance implications, or whether data is live or cached. Only the output content is hinted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys all necessary information with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete about the data returned. However, it could include output format details or a usage example to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what the output will contain (call volume, top tools, top agents), which is beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (provides) and the resources (MCP call volume, top tools, top agents) within a specific time frame (last 7 days). It distinguishes from sibling tools like admin_cost_summary which focus on cost rather than usage stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving MCP stats, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like admin_live_activity or admin_search_trends. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
Tool Count2/5
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.