List blocked domains ranked by query count, and use from_ts/until_ts to query long-term history.
Top blocked domains by query count. from_ts/until_ts switch to the long-term database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| from_ts | No | ||
| until_ts | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / from_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}Input schema / properties / until_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals a non-obvious backend switch to the long-term database when timestamps are supplied, which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as timestamp units, what happens with only one timestamp, and that it is a read-only aggregate query.
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 short sentences with zero waste. The resource and ordering are front-loaded, followed by the parameter-specific database behavior. Every sentence earns its place.
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 stats tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and many similar analytics siblings, the description is too thin. It leaves count semantics, timestamp units, and the distinction from get_recent_blocked unexplained, even though the output schema does cover return values.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for from_ts/until_ts (switching to the long-term database) but not their format or units, and the count parameter (default 10, likely number of domains returned) is entirely undocumented. Partial coverage of only two of three parameters is insufficient.
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 resource and ordering metric: top blocked domains by query count. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_top_permitted (permitted domains) and get_recent_blocked (recency), though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance. The only contextual sentence ('from_ts/until_ts switch to the long-term database') describes parameter behavior, not when an agent should choose this tool over get_recent_blocked or get_top_permitted. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.