get_record_statsRecord count statistics per archive
Returns record count statistics. When no archive is specified, all archives are listed with their total number of records. When an archive code is specified, the source types available for that archive are returned with their individual record counts. Note: version 1.1 uses archive_code instead of archive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| archive_code | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the conditional output behavior based on whether archive_code is provided. It also notes a version change in parameter naming, which is useful behavioral context.
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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear one-line summary, followed by detailed behavior in two sentences, and a brief version note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned in both modes and the effect of the optional parameter. The note about version 1.1 parameter naming is a thoughtful addition that prevents errors. No significant gaps are apparent.
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 input schema has no description coverage, but the description fully explains the single parameter archive_code: it is optional, and when provided, restricts results to that archive and changes the return structure. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 record count statistics per archive, with specific behavior for when archive_code is present or absent. It is differentiated from sibling stats tools by focusing on record counts and archive/source-type granularity.
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 explains the two usage modes: omitting archive_code returns all archives, while specifying it returns source types for that archive. This provides clear context on how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.
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.