Retrieve token optimization statistics from the context compression plugin, showing savings achieved by trimming large tool outputs.
Get token optimization 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": "get_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent enough for a basic getter. However, there are no annotations to confirm safety or side effects, and the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it is safe to call. The description carries the burden but does not fully disclose behavior beyond the implicit read nature.
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 concise phrase with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action verb and clearly names the subject. No fluff or redundancy is present.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is almost complete. It tells the agent what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more specific about the nature of the statistics (e.g., counts, sizes, savings) to fully remove ambiguity. Still, for a parameterless getter, this is reasonably complete.
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 shows an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('token optimization statistics'), but the noun phrase is somewhat vague and does not specify what statistics are included or how they relate to the sibling tools. It is clear enough to understand the general purpose, but not as precise as a description like 'List ALL calls in date range'.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. In particular, 'get_cache_stats' might overlap, but the description does not clarify the distinction or suggest conditions for choosing one over the other. The agent is left without any usage orientation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.