Devuelve el recuento de contenido por tipo (posts, projects, tips) y el total.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "content_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the categorization of the output (posts, projects, tips plus a total), implying a read-only aggregate, but it never explicitly states that it is read-only, requires no auth, or has any cost/rate behavior.
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 with zero filler; every clause conveys the return content and its dimensions.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return-value explanation rests there, and with zero parameters there is little else the description must cover. It enumerates the content types, which is helpful context; only the read-only nature and sibling routing are left unaddressed.
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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, though it adds no parameter detail because none exist.
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 states a specific verb (returns a count) and resource (content broken down by type), making the tool's purpose clear as an aggregate/statistics tool. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with list_content or search_content, but the counting semantics are naturally distinct from listing and searching.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_content or search_content, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for aggregate counts rather than retrieval.
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.