View your game asset vault's overall stats: totals per engine and category, plus counts of downloaded local assets versus cloud-only ones.
Overall vault stats: total assets per engine, per category, and how many are already downloaded locally vs cloud-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the nature of the output in useful detail: totals per engine, per category, and download status breakdown. Being a read-only stats endpoint, this is sufficient transparency, though it does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds concrete information about the aggregation dimensions and the local-versus-cloud distinction.
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 no-parameter aggregate stats tool with an output schema present, the description tells the agent exactly what dimensions the stats cover. Nothing crucial is missing for selecting or invoking this tool correctly.
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 parameter semantics are inherently non-issue. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly implies that the tool operates over the entire vault without requiring 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?
The description clearly identifies a specific resource (vault) and the kind of output (overall stats), listing concrete aggregation dimensions: assets per engine, per category, and local vs cloud-only counts. It implies a broad overview role among the siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to distinguish itself.
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 phrase 'Overall vault stats' signals that this tool is for high-level aggregate information rather than per-asset or per-category detail, so usage context is implied. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like get_asset_details or list_asset_categories, and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.