Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-vitals

agent-vitals

by Keremozdemirra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

summary

Retrieve daily census totals for AI agent tooling repositories, including counts of maintained projects and those without a licence file.

Instructions

The latest census totals: how many repositories, how many still maintained, how many without a licence file.

Tool call template

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": "summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the behavioral burden. It implies a safe, non-mutating aggregate read and uses 'latest' to hint at freshness, but does not say whether figures are computed live or cached, nor how licensing status is determined. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk is low, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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?

A single sentence fragment with no filler; the key information (that it returns totals, and which three breakdowns) is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple, parameterless, read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description covers enough to call it correctly and even enumerates the three figures returned. It stops short of describing the response shape or numeric/field naming, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 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?

The description states the specific resource it reports on — aggregate census totals for repositories, including maintained counts and repositories lacking a licence file. It omits a verb, but an agent can tell this is a read-only statistics tool and, by implication, not the per-record tools lookup/search/candidates. No explicit sibling differentiation is given.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this rather than lookup, search, or candidates, and no conditions or prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the word 'totals' suggesting an aggregate overview.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools