Retrieve summary statistics for a song including play count, debut, last performance, and jam chart appearances.
Summary stats for a song: times played, debut, last played, jamchart count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| song | Yes | ||
| include_related | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the output fields and does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any potential side effects, rate limits, or the format of the response. It also does not state whether include_related changes the behavior.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose and key outputs. It is efficient, though it omits critical details about parameters and usage, which would not hurt conciseness if added.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, so the description must provide enough context for correct invocation. It fails to explain the include_related parameter, offers no usage guidance, and does not describe behavioral traits. For a 2-parameter tool, 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'song' parameter is the identifier but does not explain it beyond 'for a song'. The 'include_related' boolean is completely undocumented in the description, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and effect.
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 states a clear purpose: 'Summary stats for a song' and lists specific output fields (times played, debut, last played, jamchart count). It distinguishes itself as a stats aggregator from siblings like song_history or jam_chart, though it does not explicitly name them. The verb is implied but the resource and fields are specific.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as song_history or jam_chart. It does not state any exclusions or prerequisites. The description leaves it to the agent to infer that this is the go-to for aggregate statistics rather than detailed history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.