get_online_usersSee who is on WindowsForum right now — counts of members, guests, and robots currently online, with recently active member names.
Returns: Dictionary with online users and guest count
| 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a dictionary with counts and member names, but lacks details on refresh interval, caching, or whether the data is a snapshot. Sufficient for a simple read-only tool.
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 the main purpose and return structure. No wasted words.
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 simple tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. Sibling tools are sufficiently different.
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 no parameters, and the schema is fully covered. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. For a zero-parameter tool, baseline is 4.
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 tool shows who is online on WindowsForum, including counts of members, guests, and robots, with recently active member names. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search or other get tools.
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 implies the tool is for checking real-time online presence but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_forum_statistics. No exclusions or context for when not to use.
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.