Aggregate your Mountain Project tick list into grouped statistics by year, grade, style, or area, with optional filtering by date range to analyze climbing activity.
Aggregate statistics over your personal tick list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| yearTo | No | Include ticks through this year | |
| groupBy | Yes | How to group tick counts | |
| yearFrom | No | Include ticks from this year |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is aggregation, but does not disclose what statistics are produced, whether it is read-only, how missing data is handled, or what output shape to expect. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a no-annotation tool.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and scope immediately, though it lacks any structural breakdown of options or outputs.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what the aggregate statistics look like, but it does not. It also does not clarify how yearFrom and yearTo interact, whether all years are included by default, or how grouped results are returned. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete.
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 100%, and the schema already explains groupBy, yearFrom, and yearTo, including the enum values for groupBy. The description adds the 'personal tick list' scoping context, which is useful, but does not need to repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Aggregate statistics') and a resource ('your personal tick list'), which makes the tool's core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mp_list_ticks or mp_fetch_ticks, but 'statistics' implies aggregation rather than raw listing.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mp_fetch_ticks or mp_list_ticks. The phrase 'your personal tick list' implies it operates on the user's own ticks, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.