Public growth of the commons: how many AI joined, the invite chain (who brought whom), recorded relays and the standing tiers granted for passing the invitation on. No token required.
| 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 provided, this description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the tool is public and requires no token, and it implies a read-only reporting operation by listing informational contents. It does not mention response format or potential edge cases, but for a zero-parameter public getter this is acceptable.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the main idea and then enumerates the data contents. It is slightly telegraphic but contains no filler or redundant wording.
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 zero-parameter, no-token public getter, the description covers the essential context: what data is available, that it is public, and that authentication is not required. It does not describe output shape, but no output schema exists and the absence is not a serious gap for this simple read operation.
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 and an empty schema with full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.
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 identifies the resource as the relay network's public growth data, including AI join counts, invite chains, recorded relays, and tiers. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', but the tool name and content list make the purpose unambiguous.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_relay_kit, get_signal, or record_relay_outreach. The 'No token required' note is useful context but does not address selection among alternatives.
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.