usom-mcp

Stats

stats

Read-only

Report record counts, newest record date, last sync time, and cache status to check local malicious-link data freshness and cache health.

Instructions

Report record counts, newest record date, last sync time and cache status.

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": "stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cache`	Yes
`stale`	Yes	True when a refresh failed and cached data may be outdated; warn the user.
`source`	No		T.C. Siber Güvenlik Başkanlığı / USOM (siberguvenlik.gov.tr)
`by_type`	Yes
`by_source`	Yes
`by_category`	Yes
`data_origin`	Yes
`total_records`	Yes
`newest_record_date`	Yes
`timestamps_timezone`	No		unspecified

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (what data the cache/index exposes), but says nothing about freshness guarantees, cost, or whether the stats reflect the same source the sibling lookups query.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the action and then the four returned fields. Every word earns its place.

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-only status endpoint with an output schema already present, the description is nearly sufficient. Only the missing guidance on when to consult stats (and how it relates to the sibling lookups) keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent any parameter discussion, and the schema's additionalProperties:false is consistent with the parameterless call.

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?

Names a specific verb (Report) and enumerates the exact data points returned: record counts, newest record date, last sync time, cache status. Clearly distinguishable from the threat-lookup siblings, which all deal with individual indicators rather than cache/index metadata.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over siblings or what situation calls for a stats check (e.g. diagnosing stale cache before a search returns nothing). Usage is only inferable from the name.

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

Deploy Server