Skip to main content
Glama

fa_stats

Measure Persian text: character count, word count, line count and the number of ZWNJ half-space characters. Use it to size a Persian document, enforce a length limit, or report text statistics for Persian content. Returns a stats object. ($0.005 per call, USDC on Base)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "fa_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesPersian (Farsi) text or value to process. Max 100000 characters.
optionsNooptional, e.g. {"digits":"ascii"}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose pricing ($0.005 per call, USDC on Base) plus the return type, which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about error behavior, the 100000-character limit handling, or the shape of the stats object beyond the word 'object'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the metrics, then usage, then return type and cost. Every sentence contributes and there is no padding or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, cost, and return type. Only drift from full marks is the lack of any indication of what fields the returned stats object contains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both the required 'text' parameter and the 'options' object are already documented in the schema, including the max-length constraint. The description adds no extra meaning to the options field (e.g. the digits:ascii example), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (measure) and resource (Persian text) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: character, word, line, and ZWNJ half-space counts. This distinguishes it well from siblings like fa_sentences or fa_keywords, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives three concrete use cases (sizing a document, enforcing a length limit, reporting Persian text statistics), which makes when-to-use clear. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing to sibling tools for adjacent needs.

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.

Resources