Retrieve project statistics to monitor shared activity, track collaboration metrics, and assess team progress in real time.
View statistics about the project.
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": "view_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.1Does 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 indicates a read operation ('View') but does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, how statistics are aggregated, or what the response format looks like. Critical behavioral details are absent.
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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add useful context, though it does not waste words.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information about what the agent will receive. Saying 'statistics about the project' is vague; it does not enumerate which metrics, how they are grouped, or any formatting. An agent cannot predict the tool's behavior accurately from this description alone.
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, so the schema trivially covers 100% of them. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exists; no compensation is needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('View') and a resource ('statistics about the project'), which is distinct from the sibling tools focused on files, locks, members, and changes. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of statistics are provided, so it is clear but not fully descriptive.
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 alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer that 'viewing statistics' is the purpose, but there is no explicit routing away from siblings or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.