network_statsRead aggregate public UsageMax network statistics and render the optional inline observability view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: the data is aggregate, public, sourced from UsageMax, and the tool may render an inline observability view. No contradiction exists.
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 description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the optional rendering behavior. Every phrase carries meaning and the structure is easy to scan.
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?
Given that there are no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is nearly complete for invocation. The only missing piece is clearer usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but that is captured under usage_guidelines and does not block a correct call.
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 zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage by definition. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.
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 ('Read'), a clear resource ('aggregate public UsageMax network statistics'), and an additional behavior ('render the optional inline observability view'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like leaderboard or public_profile without opening the schema.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. For a simple read-only stats tool this is a moderate gap, but the lack of any comparison to ask_site, leaderboard, or public_profile means the agent must infer usage context.
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.