Retrieve base Bunpro study statistics to review overall progress and activity in one place.
Get base study statistics
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": "get_base_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no hint about scope, cost, data freshness, or what the returned statistics 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?
A single short phrase with no waste and the resource front-loaded. But it is under-specified rather than efficient — one more clause about contents or scope would cost nothing and remove real ambiguity.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it doesn't. For a zero-argument aggregate-statistics call in a crowded family of stats getters, an agent has no basis to choose it or anticipate its response.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is fully sufficient. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.
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?
Names a verb (Get) and a resource (base study statistics), so the agent knows it retrieves some kind of summary data. However, "base study statistics" is ambiguous — it doesn't say which statistics or how they differ from near-identical siblings like get_srs_overview, get_jlpt_progress, or get_review_activity.
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 indication of when to call this versus the many overlapping stats getters in the sibling list. The agent must guess whether this is a dashboard summary, a prerequisite for other calls, or a subset of get_srs_overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.