mcpforwork

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pipeline_stats

Retrieve pipeline counts for new matches, awaiting human, submitted/verified, and responses to monitor job search progress.

Instructions

Pipeline counts for a status summary: new matches, awaiting the human, submitted/verified, responses. The same read the dashboard shows.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pipeline_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'read' and 'the same read the dashboard shows,' clearly indicating a read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not mention potential caching or permission requirements, but for a simple stats read the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose and a useful context sentence ('The same read the dashboard shows'). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (handling return value details), the description provides sufficient context: it names the categories, signals read-only behavior, and frames it as a dashboard-equivalent summary. No additional explanation is needed for a tool of this simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them (100% coverage). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is appropriate since there are none to explain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns pipeline counts for a status summary, enumerating specific categories (new matches, awaiting the human, submitted/verified, responses). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_matches or get_match, which provide detailed records rather than aggregate counts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage via 'status summary' and 'the same read the dashboard shows,' indicating it is for overview/read purposes. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives or exclude it for detailed operations, leaving the guidance implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.