skimguard_coverage_statsAggregate, network-wide SkimGuard scan statistics over a time window — total scans, suspicious detections, distinct locations and states covered. No identifying data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days (1-365, default 30) | |
| response_format | No | Response format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json' | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the data is network-wide aggregate rather than per-location, and 'No identifying data' is a privacy disclosure that shapes whether an agent should treat the output as PII-safe.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the aggregation scope, followed by what is measured and the privacy caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.
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 usefully lists what the response contains, and for a 2-optional-param read-only tool that is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is that it does not contrast with the several sibling stats tools, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (days with its 1-365 range and default, and response_format with its enum) are already fully documented. The description only gestures at 'a time window' and adds no format or interpretation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a concrete verb+resource ('Aggregate, network-wide SkimGuard scan statistics') and enumerates the metrics returned (total scans, suspicious detections, distinct locations and states). This distinguishes it implicitly from the per-location siblings (skimguard_get_location_status, skimguard_location_devices), but it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 only implied: an agent can infer the tool suits network-wide rollups over a lookback window. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as skimguard_inspection_stats or skimguard_training_stats, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.
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.