Fetch total stream counts for a specific artist from a user's library, with optional limit and response format.
Stream totals for one artist within a user library
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1–100. Default: 50 | |
| user_id | Yes | stats.fm user id or customId (e.g. "martijn") | |
| artist_id | Yes | stats.fm artist id | |
| response_format | No | 'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object | concise |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.29.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Stream totals' without explaining aggregation window, output shape, pagination, or whether totals are lifetime or filtered, leaving important behavior unspecified.
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 wasted words or duplication of schema information. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.
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 description and schema together communicate the essential operation and required identifiers. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description does not clarify what 'totals' includes (e.g., plays, minutes) or how response_format changes the result shape, leaving some ambiguity.
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 input schema fully documents all four parameters, including defaults, ranges, and the response_format enum. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema coverage baseline.
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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving stream totals for a single artist within a user's library. It is specific enough to distinguish from related sibling tools like statsfm_track_stats or statsfm_album_stats, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
The phrase 'within a user library' establishes clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not state exclusion criteria or name alternative tools from the large statsfm sibling set, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.