stats
Aggregate public stats.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Progenly
by com.progenly
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description is the sole source. It only mentions 'aggregate' and 'public', implying a read operation but no details on side effects, permissions, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but vague, not earning its place fully; it fails to provide sufficient detail for agent use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no parameters, and given the tool likely returns aggregated data, the description is too sparse to be 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?
Tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description offers no param-specific info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Aggregate public stats', which indicates a verb and resource but lacks specificity about what stats are aggregated. It distinguishes from siblings only minimally due to the generic term 'stats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_births or search_births. No exclusions or context 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
Each tool addresses a distinct operation: merge workflows (stage, join, lock, confirm, cancel, status) are separate from birth queries (get, list, search, random, certificate, lineage, verify) and auxiliary functions (stats, revocations, colony handle verification). No two tools have ambiguous purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (cancel_merge, get_birth, list_births), with minor exceptions like 'merge_status' (noun_verb) and 'random_birth' (adjective_noun). The convention is largely consistent and readable.
Tool Count4/5
16 tools is a reasonable count for a system handling both birth certificates and merge intents. The number is well-scoped, not excessive, and each tool contributes to covering the domain without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full merge lifecycle (stage, join, lock, confirm, cancel, status) and birth querying (get, list, search, random, certificate, lineage). While there is no explicit tool to create a birth (it is a product of a merge), the set feels complete for the intended workflows.