Returns top-10 names per year, total birth counts per year, and the full year range covered by the dataset.
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_site_metadata"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the output content, but does not mention details like whether data is cached, if any rate limits apply, or performance characteristics. For a simple read-only metadata retrieval, 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 a single sentence that fully lists the three return components without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully enumerates what the user receives (top-10 names, birth counts, year range). It is complete enough to set expectations correctly for this simple metadata endpoint.
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 description naturally does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no param information to convey beyond the empty schema.
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 verb 'Returns' and lists three specific resources: top-10 names per year, total birth counts per year, and the full year range. This uniquely identifies the tool as a metadata overview, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_year_names or search_names.
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?
Usage is implied by the description—if an agent needs dataset-level metadata such as top names or birth counts, this is the tool to use. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives compared to sibling tools, which makes it acceptable but not strongly guiding.
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.