AEGIS Events

Event statistics

event_stats

Read-only

Count risk events matching the filters, bucketed by day, week, month, category or country, for trends, comparisons and "how many" questions (for example protests per week in a country). Returns counts only, no event details.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group_by": "<group_by>"
    },
    "name": "event_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	No	Place name(s), e.g. 'Istanbul Kadikoy'; every word must appear in the event's address
`date_to`	No	Last day, inclusive, UTC (YYYY-MM-DD). Default: today
`sources`	No	Source domains, e.g. ['reuters.com']; an event matches if any of its sources is one of them
`group_by`	Yes	How to bucket the event counts
`near_lat`	No	Latitude of a point; use with near_lon
`near_lon`	No	Longitude of a point; use with near_lat
`countries`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes, e.g. ['TR', 'DE']; an event matches any of them
`date_from`	No	First day, inclusive, UTC (YYYY-MM-DD). Default: 30 days before date_to
`radius_km`	No	Radius around the point in km, default 10, max 50
`categories`	No	Category slugs (any level: main, type or subtype); an event matches any of them
`min_sources`	No	Minimum number of independent sources
`min_importance`	No	Minimum importance score, 0-1

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful output-shape context by stating results are counts only with no event details, but says nothing about default window behavior, aggregation gaps, or how empty buckets are handled — all of which matter for a bucketed counting tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, entirely front-loaded: what is counted, how it is bucketed, and when to use it, with the output constraint last. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 12 parameters, an output schema present, and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing high-level frame — aggregation-based counting rather than event retrieval. It is close to complete; only a note on default date windowing or zero-count buckets would add material value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema, including filter semantics and defaults. The description only restates the group_by enum values and adds no format or combination guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Count risk events") plus the aggregation dimension ("bucketed by day, week, month, category or country"), which is precise enough to act on. The clause "Returns counts only, no event details" functionally distinguishes it from the detail-returning sibling search_events, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Frames the intended use cases clearly (trends, comparisons, "how many" questions) and supplies a concrete example ("protests per week in a country") that maps onto group_by plus a country filter. It stops short of an explicit exclusion like "use search_events for individual events," leaving the boundary to be inferred from the counts-only note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AEGIS Events tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?