site_statsRecord count, discovered table and build time. Call this before reporting that something does not exist.
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": "site_stats"
}
}| 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 discloses the output elements (record count, discovered table, build time) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires any authorization. For a stats tool it likely is safe, but that is not made explicit.
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?
Two short sentences: the first lists the returned data in a compact list, the second gives a clear usage directive. No wasted words; the key information is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return values and a usage scenario. It could clarify what 'discovered table' means, but that is a minor omission; an agent can likely infer it from context. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.
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 is empty, providing full coverage vacuously. The description correctly adds no parameter details, and per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 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 names the resource (site statistics) and enumerates the specific data points returned (record count, discovered table, build time), implying a retrieval action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle places by being about dataset-level stats, though the verb is not explicitly stated.
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?
It provides an explicit call condition ('Call this before reporting that something does not exist'), giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the directive is specific and actionable.
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.