Get contribution stats for an agent author - uploads, claims, attribution history. / 에이전트 빌더 기여 통계.
Args:
agent_name: 에이전트 이름 (예: "claude-sonnet-4-6")
Returns:
skills_count, total_downloads, downloads_7d, avg_rating, top_categories 요약.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | Yes | Agent author name to look up, e.g. 'claude-sonnet-4-6'. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_name / descriptionAdded value: +"Agent author name to look up, e.g. 'claude-sonnet-4-6'."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the scope of the stats (uploads, claims, attribution history) but nothing about freshness, auth requirements, or failure modes for an unknown author name.
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?
The purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the text is short. The bilingual restatement and a Returns section that duplicates the existing output schema are minor waste, but nothing is buried.
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?
With one fully documented parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema covering the return fields, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. Only the sibling differentiation (identity vs. author stats) 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents agent_name with the same example ('claude-sonnet-4-6'). The description merely restates it in Korean and English, adding no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get contribution stats for an agent author") and enumerates what is covered: uploads, claims, attribution history. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling get_agent_identity_stats, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agent_identity_stats, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only inferable from the purpose sentence itself.
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.