Retrieve HWID device statistics to monitor device usage, identify active hardware, and manage VPN clients.
Get HWID device statistics
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": "hwid_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden, but it only says 'Get' which implies read-only. It doesn't disclose return format, data scope, performance implications, or any limitations, so it remains too thin for safety/cost assessment.
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 filler. It conveys the action and object in the minimum number of words, which is ideal for conciseness.
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 is too sparse for the tool's context. With no output schema, no annotations, and a vague term like 'statistics', an agent cannot tell exactly what it returns or how it differs from similar HWID endpoints. Key missing context is not compensated anywhere else.
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 is empty with zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the calibration rule, a score of 4 is the baseline for a tool with no parameters.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a resource ('HWID device statistics'), which establishes the basic purpose. However, 'statistics' is ambiguous and doesn't differentiate this from closely related siblings like hwid_top_users or system_stats, so it stays 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to choose this tool over hwid_devices_list_all, hwid_top_users, or other HWID/stats endpoints, and gives no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.