Count message and media volume by day, week, or month, including hits per period, top senders, chats, and topics. Use it to answer when, how much, and who questions over long periods.
Counts instead of messages: volume per day/week/month (with query: hits per period), top senders, topics, chats. For when/how much/who questions over long periods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| chats | No | ||
| media | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| until | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is aggregated counts rather than raw messages, but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or limits; adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.
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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core aggregation purpose and usage trigger lead. Telegraphic phrasing occasionally forces inference, but nothing is wasted.
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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves more than half the parameters (media, from, since, until) and the return format unexplained. An agent cannot confidently populate those fields from this text 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 params, so the description carries the full burden. It only illuminates 'by' (day/week/month), 'query' (hits per period), and 'chats' (top chats); 'media', 'from', 'since', and 'until' are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Counts ... volume per day/week/month') and enumerates the aggregation outputs (top senders, topics, chats). The phrase 'Counts instead of messages' implicitly distinguishes it from the message-returning siblings search/read, though it never names 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?
'For when/how much/who questions over long periods' gives clear usage context and the contrast with message-returning tools is implied. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is not fully 5-level routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.