helloasso_get_form_statsGet statistics for a single HelloAsso form by type and slug, including amounts collected and order or item counts.
Statistics of one form (amounts collected, number of orders/items...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgSlug | No | Organization slug (as in helloasso.com/associations/<slug>). Defaults to HELLOASSO_ORG_SLUG. | |
| formSlug | Yes | Form slug (as in the form URL). | |
| formType | Yes | Form (campaign) type. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned metrics, but says nothing about aggregation window (lifetime vs. date-bounded), freshness/caching, or auth/scope requirements. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a modest but real contribution.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key output examples appear first. The trailing ellipsis slightly weakens precision but costs little space.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it only sketches them ('amounts collected, number of orders/items...'). For a read-only stats endpoint that is roughly adequate, but the agent cannot tell whether results are totals over the form's lifetime, whether they include only paid orders, or what currency/format the amounts take.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, including a documented enum for formType and the HELLOASSO_ORG_SLUG fallback for orgSlug, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters; baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb-and-resource pair (statistics of one form) and parenthetically enumerates what the stats contain (amounts collected, order/item counts), which separates it from helloasso_get_form. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that sibling, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to choose this over helloasso_get_form or helloasso_list_orders, and no note on required prerequisites such as a valid orgSlug default. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'statistics'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.