Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Xbitto MCP

Xbitto MCP

by blackcheet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get Pool Stats

get_pool_stats
Read-only

Retrieve a Gated link's pool statistics: remaining items and items given to orders, using the link's short code.

Instructions

How many items a Gated link's pool has left and how many were given to orders.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "get_pool_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe link's short code (the part after the domain).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's main added value is clarifying what the numbers mean (remaining vs. allocated). It does not disclose units, whether 'left' accounts for pending orders, or any rate/auth considerations, so it goes only modestly beyond the annotation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One compact sentence with no filler. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('Gated link's pool has left') but information-dense and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description does the minimum by naming the two returned counts, but gives no field names or shape. For a simple single-param read tool that is borderline adequate, leaving an agent to discover the actual response format.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single 'code' param is fully documented in the schema with its pattern and meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema carries the load.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states what is returned — remaining pool items and items already allocated to orders — for a 'Gated link'. However, it is phrased as a question about quantities rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it never explicitly names 'pool stats' or distinguishes itself from the sibling get_link, which also concerns a link's state.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_link, list_links, or list_orders. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for checking pool availability before adding items or assessing scarcity.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools