全站收錄商品數、會員數與官方資料最後更新時間。
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": "toy_stats"
}
}| 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or whether it has side effects, rate limits, or caching behavior. It only lists the returned fields, which is return-value information rather than behavioral trait disclosure.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's output without preamble or redundancy.
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 simple, parameterless nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned statistics (product count, member count, official data update time). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the return format or that it is a read-only operation, but for a zero-parameter stats tool it is largely sufficient.
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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description adds no param-related meaning because none is needed.
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 the resource it provides: site-wide counts of products, members, and the last official data update time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_toy and search_toys, which are about individual items rather than aggregate statistics. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, so the action is implied rather than explicit.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only says what data is returned, leaving the agent to infer that it should be called when aggregate site statistics are needed.
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.