overallFetch daily PyPI download timeseries for a package from pypistats.org, optionally filtered to exclude mirror traffic (mirrors=false). Returns per-day download counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mirrors | No | ||
| package | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Daily download statistics | |
| type | No | Response type | |
| package | No | Package name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "package": "django"
+ },
+ {
+ "mirrors": false,
+ "package": "pandas"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Daily download statistics",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "date": {
+ "description": "Date of the observation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "downloads": {
+ "description": "Number of downloads",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "package": {
+ "description": "Package name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "Response type",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the data source (pypistats.org), return type (timeseries), and optional filter behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond them.
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, well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part adds value. No unnecessary words.
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 simplicity of the tool, the description fully covers its purpose, source, optional filter, and return type. Output schema exists and annotations provide safety guarantees. No gaps.
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 compensates by explaining the 'mirrors' parameter explicitly (exclude mirror traffic). The 'package' parameter is implied by context but not formally described. This adds meaningful semantics for one of two parameters.
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 'Fetch', the resource 'daily PyPI download timeseries for a package', source 'pypistats.org', and optional filter. It is specific and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which deal with PyPI stats.
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 implicitly indicates usage by stating the source and optional filter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use or when not to use, nor does it provide alternative tools. For a unique tool, this is acceptable but could be clearer.
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.