get_download_statsGet recent download counts for a Python package (last day, last week, last month) from pypistats.org. Gauges how popular a pip package is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact PyPI package name, e.g. "requests". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "requests"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "pandas"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the external data source (pypistats.org) and the specific time ranges returned, providing context beyond the annotations.
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, using two short sentences. It front-loads the action and key details, with no redundant or unnecessary information.
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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what data it returns, and its source. Annotations cover safety, so no further elaboration is needed.
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 describes the single parameter 'name' fully (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get', the resource 'recent download counts', and specifies the time ranges (last day, last week, last month) and source (pypistats.org). It also indicates the tool's purpose of gauging pip package popularity. No sibling tool has a matching purpose.
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 implies usage for checking package popularity via 'Gauges how popular a pip package is.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for related tasks like package metadata retrieval.
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.