Provides counts of reviewed and unreviewed alerts and detections for the last 24 hours and each day across a configurable period, matching Frigate UI review totals.
Counts of alerts and detections for the last 24 hours and per day for the last days days
(reviewed / not reviewed), as in the Frigate UI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the aggregation behavior and time granularity, but omits read-only nature, auth/rate limits, error behavior, and exact return shape.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence beginning with 'Counts of alerts and detections,' with no filler. The parenthetical reviewed/not-reviewed detail and Frigate UI reference are compact and relevant.
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 simple one-parameter summary tool, the description covers the core output categories and time windows. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should more fully specify the response structure and safety/read-only context.
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?
There is one parameter, `days`, and the description explicitly defines it as the lookback span for per-day counts, compensating for 0% schema coverage. It does not clarify edge cases such as whether today is included or any bounds, so it is not a 5.
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 names the resource (alerts and detections) and the operation (counts/summary), with explicit time windows and a reviewed/not-reviewed split. It is clear enough to distinguish a summary aggregation from list_reviews or list_events, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; it does not say to prefer this over list_reviews or list_events when only counts are needed. 'As in the Frigate UI' hints at a dashboard-style summary but is not an actionable selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.