get_stats
Read-only
Archive-wide published counts (artists, works, exhibitions, organizations, articles, sources), year coverage, and last-updated timestamp.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
arhiiv
by ee.ehtekunst
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds specific behavioral context (returned data: counts, year coverage, timestamp), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys all essential information concisely, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key output.
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 tool with no parameters and a simple purpose, the description covers the returned data types. However, it lacks details on the structure (e.g., whether counts are separate fields or in an object). No output schema exists to fill this gap, so completeness is slightly reduced.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns archive-wide published counts for multiple entity types, year coverage, and timestamp. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual entities or search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the archive-wide scope implies it's for overview, while siblings are for specific entities or searches. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
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
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a unique entity or action (e.g., get_artist vs. search_artists, get_relations vs. get_stats). No two tools have overlapping purposes, so an agent can clearly distinguish them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: either get_<entity> or search_<entity>. No mixing of conventions like camelCase or different verbs.
Tool Count5/5
12 tools is well-scoped for an archive server covering artists, exhibitions, works, organizations, marks, press, and graph relations. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the main entities (artists, works, exhibitions, organizations) and provides search and retrieval for all key types. Additional tools like get_relations and get_timeline fill gaps for connected data and chronology, making the set feel complete for its domain.