Sizes of your turn responses by mode (full/compact), confirmed use of facts, and second_look stats. Read-only.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "turn_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully declares 'Read-only,' which clarifies the safety profile, but does not disclose aggregation behavior, permission requirements, rate limits, or what the stats actually represent.
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 tight single sentence plus a read-only note, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient, though some terseness comes at the cost of clarity around jargon.
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 stats tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the time window, return shape, and key concepts like 'second_look.' It leaves the only parameter undocumented and does not clarify what consumers should expect from the output.
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 0% for the single `days` parameter. The description never mentions `days`, so it adds no semantic meaning about the time window, default behavior, or accepted values beyond the self-explanatory parameter name.
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 names specific metrics: turn response sizes by mode, confirmed fact use, and second_look stats. This clearly identifies a stats tool and distinguishes it from the sibling `turn` tool, though domain terms like 'second_look' and 'confirmed use of facts' remain unexplained.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus `turn` or other siblings. It implies read-only reporting but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting it.
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.