stats_overviewGet a statistics dashboard for a specified date range to review salon performance. The first read may take a minute.
The main statistics dashboard for a period. The first read can take a minute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| date_from | Yes | First day of the period (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| date_till | Yes | Last day of the period (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| time_span | No | Period type | month |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond annotations: that the first read may take a minute, implying latency and likely caching. However, it does not explain the cache behavior or how 'fresh' changes it, so the coverage is partial rather than rich.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the period scope is front-loaded. The size is appropriate, though the content is thin for the complexity of the tool.
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 statistics dashboard with four parameters, no output schema, and multiple stats_* siblings, the description is too thin. It does not say what the overview contains or how it differs from stats_dashboard, so an agent cannot predict return values or select correctly. The annotations and schema cover safety and inputs, but the description leaves the core output/identity gap unaddressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including the time_span enum and fresh flag) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 identifies a resource ('statistics dashboard') and a scope ('for a period'), but it gives no concrete verb beyond 'read' indirectly and no indication of what statistics are included. Critically, a sibling tool named stats_dashboard exists, and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from it, leaving the agent unable to choose confidently between them.
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 only guidance is 'The first read can take a minute,' which is a performance note rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to choose this tool over stats_dashboard, stats_report, or the other stats_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.