get_forum_statisticsGet sitewide WindowsForum statistics — total threads, posts, and members, plus the newest member; use for questions about the community's size and activity.
Returns: Dictionary with various forum statistics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a dictionary with various statistics, which is already covered by the output schema. No additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous content. Every word adds value.
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 parameterless tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description is fully complete: it states what it does, what it returns, and when to use it.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description need not add param info. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('sitewide WindowsForum statistics') and details the included data (threads, posts, members, newest member). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_online_users' or 'get_latest_registered_users' by specifying 'sitewide' statistics about community size and activity.
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?
The description explicitly states usage context: 'use for questions about the community's size and activity.' While it doesn't enumerate when not to use it, the guidance is clear and implies appropriate scenarios.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the numerous search variants (search, search_elastic, search_semantic, search_threads, search_posts) overlap in functionality. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so only minor ambiguity exists.
Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, search_, list_). However, 'fetch' is a bare verb, and 'list_threads' uses 'list' instead of 'get', creating slight inconsistency. Overall, the pattern is clear.
With 22 tools, the count is on the higher side for a forum server. Several search tools could be consolidated, but the scope (reading threads, posts, users, statistics, KB articles) justifies the number. Borderline heavy.
The tool surface covers all read operations for a forum: threads, posts, users, statistics, news, KB articles, and multiple search methods. However, there are no write tools (create, update, delete), which is a minor gap if interaction is expected.