Retrieve referral counts for a user, with pagination via limit and offset and optional admin acting on behalf through user_id.
GET /user/referrals Получение количества рефералов Тег: Пользователи Спека: user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Макс. кол-во записей | |
| offset | No | Смещение (пропуск записей) | |
| user_id | No | admin acts on behalf of this user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates the HTTP method and a Russian label; it does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or the response format. The presence of limit/offset parameters also creates ambiguity with the stated 'count' purpose.
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 short and starts with the endpoint path, but it includes internal metadata lines ('Тег: Пользователи', 'Спека: user') that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. It is concise but not optimally structured for tool selection.
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 and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination, and the meaning of user_id. It says only that it gets referral count, which is insufficient and potentially conflicting with the limit/offset parameters.
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 the schema already documents limit, offset, and user_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states the HTTP verb and resource path ('GET /user/referrals') and adds a Russian gloss that specifies the purpose: retrieving referral count. This is clear enough for an agent to know the tool returns referral quantity, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar user/referral-adjacent siblings.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use conditions, or which sibling tool handles referral listing versus counting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.