get_profession_statsProfession frequency statistics
Returns the number of times professions appear in records for the selected period and place. Results are ordered by frequency. Open Archives uses this endpoint to power its profession frequency visualisation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| eventplace | No | ||
| number_show | No | ||
| eventyearend | No | ||
| eventyearstart | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only (readOnlyHint), open world (openWorldHint), and non-destructive (destructiveHint) behavior. The description adds that results are 'ordered by frequency' and scoped by 'selected period and place,' which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential limits, defaults, or how missing parameters behave.
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 compact with three sentences. The first sentence ('Profession frequency statistics') is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the second and third are useful. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a relevant use case without unnecessary detail.
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?
The tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides the core behavior (frequency counts, ordering, period/place) but lacks parameter semantics for number_show and lang, and does not describe the response structure. It is adequate for basic understanding 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies 'selected period and place' (eventyearstart/eventyearend, eventplace). It leaves 'number_show' and 'lang' unexplained, leaving ambiguity for these parameters. This does not fully compensate for the schema gap.
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 specific action: 'Returns the number of times professions appear in records for the selected period and place.' It identifies the resource (professions) and the verb (returns), and distinguishes it from sibling stats tools by focusing on professions.
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 implies usage when profession frequency statistics are needed and mentions a concrete use case (Open Archives visualization), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. No sibling comparisons are given.
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.