Retrieve summary statistics from the TRAIL content log, filtered by timestamp or requester, to analyze activity and troubleshoot workflows.
Get summary statistics from the TRAIL content log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ISO 8601 timestamp — only count entries after this | |
| requester | No | Filter by workflow/task ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as how statistics are computed, whether the result is deterministic, or what is included in the summary.
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 single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose in a clear, direct manner.
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?
The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and strong annotations, but there is no output schema. The description does not specify what 'summary statistics' are returned (e.g., counts, averages, distributions), leaving a gap in expected behavior for the agent.
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 schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('since' and 'requester') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention or add any further meaning to these parameters, leaving the schema to carry the semantic load.
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 'Get summary statistics from the TRAIL content log', which is a specific verb ('get') and resource ('summary statistics' from 'TRAIL content log'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_trail', which presumably returns raw entries.
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?
Usage is implied by the word 'summary statistics' — indicating an aggregate view rather than raw log entries from sibling 'get_trail'. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.