Get nationwide association statistics for France. Returns total associations across all regions and departments, top regions, top departments, and overall distribution insights. Useful for understanding the French associative landscape.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Returns...') with no mention of mutation or destructive behavior. While it does not disclose rate limits or performance, for a simple query tool with no parameters, the behavioral context is sufficiently transparent.
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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and output, and the second provides a use case. Every word contributes value.
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 no output schema, the description explains the return content (total associations, top regions, top departments, distribution insights). It provides a high-level overview but lacks specific structure details. Given the tool's simplicity and zero parameters, this level of completeness is adequate.
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 the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is value beyond the empty schema. According to guidelines, zero parameters default to a baseline of 4.
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' and the resource ('nationwide association statistics for France'). It specifies the return content (total associations, top regions, top departments, distribution insights). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_department_stats (single department) and get_platform_stats (platform-wide).
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 includes 'Useful for understanding the French associative landscape,' which implies when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context from sibling tools provides differentiation. The guidance is clear but could be more explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
