get_stats_by_periodGet email statistics grouped by day, week, month, or year.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_stats_by_period"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | ||
| toDate | No | ||
| fromDate | No | ||
| emailAddress | No | ||
| emailAccountId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / emailAddress / patternPrevious value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the grouping dimension; it says nothing about what statistics are returned, how the date bounds are interpreted, or whether results are paginated/limited.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a five-parameter tool.
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 five mostly undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of filtering semantics or date units, the definition leaves substantial gaps an agent needs to call this correctly. The annotations carry the safety story, but the functional contract is incomplete.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It restates the period enum already present in the schema, and leaves toDate/fromDate units (epoch seconds vs milliseconds?), emailAccountId, and the relationship between emailAddress and emailAccountId completely undefined.
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 (Get), resource (email statistics), and the grouping dimension (day/week/month/year), which is clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_response_time_stats, which is also a stats-retrieval tool.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_response_time_stats or any other sibling, and no mention of prerequisites or filtering context. The agent is left to infer scope entirely from the name.
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.