Retrieve HTTP request statistics from the Remnawave VPN panel to monitor traffic and system performance.
Get HTTP request 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": "system_stats_http"
}
}| 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get HTTP request statistics' implies a read operation but says nothing about scope, time range, aggregation, caching, authentication, or whether the response is a snapshot or a computed summary.
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. Every word earns its place, and the resource is named immediately.
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?
Despite being simple and parameterless, the description is incomplete because the surrounding context includes many closely related system stats tools. It does not define what 'HTTP request statistics' includes, what time period it covers, or how it differs from system_stats_digest, system_stats_recap, or system_bandwidth_stats. The absence of an output schema makes this ambiguity worse.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Get HTTP request statistics.' This is clear and immediately readable, but it does not differentiate itself from the many similar sibling tools such as system_stats, system_stats_digest, system_stats_recap, or system_bandwidth_stats.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous other system_stats_* and bandwidth/statistics siblings. The description only says what it does, not when it is the right choice or when an alternative would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.