mcp-agent-hub

hub_stats

Retrieves an overview of agent, task, message, and blackboard counts plus the SQLite database path for monitoring and diagnostics.

Instructions

Hub 总览：Agent/任务/消息/黑板计数与 DB 路径。

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": "hub_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 does disclose the shape of the payload (counts plus DB path), which signals a safe read-only aggregation, but says nothing about permissions, freshness, or cost. Because an output schema exists, the return-value gap is partly mitigated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the resource name front-loaded and the concrete contents listed after. Nothing is padding, though the brevity leaves no room for the routing guidance an agent would benefit from.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers what data comes back (counts and DB path), which is the main thing an agent needs. Missing only sibling differentiation and any caveats about the DB path exposure.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% as well.

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?

States a specific resource ('Hub 总览') and enumerates exactly what it counts (Agent/任务/消息/黑板) plus the DB path, which distinguishes it from analytical siblings like team_status and activity_log. The verb is implicit ('overview') rather than an explicit action, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 reach for this versus team_status or activity_log, both of which also report state. Usage is only implied by the word '总览' — an agent must infer the diagnostic-first context itself.

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