directory_statsReturns the total number of MCP servers in the directory, the count added in the last 7 days, and the crawler’s last completion time.
Return how many MCP servers are in the directory, how many were added in the last 7 days, and when the crawler last finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| last_crawl_at | Yes | ||
| total_servers | Yes | ||
| added_last_7_days | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description usefully discloses what the payload contains (counts and crawler recency), which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs for a stats call. It adds nothing about data staleness, caching, or refresh cadence beyond the crawler timestamp, and the annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, and the three returned values are enumerated up front in the order an agent would care about them.
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?
With no inputs and an output schema present, the description only needs to say what the aggregate covers, which it does precisely. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly makes no attempt to describe arguments.
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?
Specific verb ('Return') plus the exact three data points returned: total server count, 7-day additions, and last crawler completion time. That is clearly distinguishable from list_categories, search_mcp_servers, get_mcp_server, and run_readiness_check, none of which are aggregate-statistics tools.
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 zero-parameter, aggregate nature implies when to reach for it over the list/search/get siblings, but the description never states that explicitly and names no alternatives or exclusions. Usage is inferred from the return contents rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.