get_family_name_statsFamily name frequency statistics
Returns the number of times family names appear in events for the selected source types, place and period. Results are ordered by frequency. Open Archives uses this endpoint to power its family name frequency visualisation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| eventtype | No | ||
| eventplace | No | ||
| number_show | No | ||
| eventyearend | No | ||
| eventyearstart | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ordered by frequency and that Open Archives uses it for a visualization, but it does not discuss edge cases like zero results, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences: a label and a concise functional statement. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition of schema information.
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 read-only stats endpoint with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a general overview but leaves parameter details and response structure to the schema, which has no descriptions. It explains what is returned (counts of family names) but not the result format, defaults, or how eventtype maps to event types. Acceptable for a simple tool but not fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions place and period, roughly mapping to eventplace and eventyear range, but it does not explain eventtype enum values, lang, number_show, or the meaning of 'selected source types' (no such parameter exists in the schema). The description adds only vague conceptual mapping rather than specific parameter guidance.
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 clearly states the tool returns family name frequency statistics from events, limited by source types, place, and period, with results ordered by frequency. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_first_name_stats and get_profession_stats.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or exclusions. The description implies its use case for family-name stats, but it does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or when other stats endpoints would be more appropriate.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, e.g., browse/search/show/view transcriptions are well differentiated. The stats tools (get_event_type_stats vs get_source_type_stats vs get_record_stats) are similar in structure but each targets a unique dimension, and names make the distinction clear.
All tools use snake_case and are descriptive, but they mix verb prefixes: browse, get, match, search, show, view. This is not fully consistent, though each verb aligns with the action. Some names like get_births_years_ago are less patterned than others.
With 22 tools, the set is on the heavier side but justifiably covers diverse features: genealogical records, transcriptions, statistics, weather, census, and archives. It borders on too many, but the scope is broad enough to support them.
The domain of genealogical archives is well covered with search, show, browse, stats, and matching tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit user comment tools beyond stats, no direct archive detail endpoint separate from list), but core workflows are supported.