Returns aggregated public TokenSafe stats (total tokens saved, active teams). No auth.
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": "get_public_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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the data is aggregated and requires no authentication, which is meaningful context, but it does not mention rate limits, caching, data freshness, or privacy boundaries for a public stats endpoint.
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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, the metric examples parenthetically attached, and the auth condition stated last. No wasted wording.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level and notes the no-auth condition. A slightly fuller enumeration of returned fields would make it complete, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly presents this as a parameterless aggregate query, and there is nothing further the schema needs the description to compensate for.
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') and resource ('aggregated public TokenSafe stats') and gives concrete examples of the metrics (total tokens saved, active teams). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like get_team_metrics.
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 phrase 'public TokenSafe stats' and 'No auth' imply this is for unauthenticated, aggregate-level queries rather than team-scoped metrics, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_team_metrics or get_license_status. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.