Retrieves live public metrics for WordPress.org plugins, Firefox Add-ons, and GitHub repositories—including installs, ratings, daily users, downloads, and stars—without API keys.
Live public store numbers that need no keys: WordPress.org plugins (installs, rating, downloads last 7 days), Firefox Add-ons (daily users, ratings), GitHub stars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network reach are covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — these are live public numbers requiring no API keys — but says nothing about rate limits, freshness, or failure behavior for external stores that may 404.
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 compact clauses with no filler, and the key capability ('no keys required') is placed up front. The parenthetical metric lists are dense but readable.
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 tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: what 'profile' selects, whether results cover all three stores at once or one at a time, and what the returned shape looks like. It reads as a capability blurb rather than a usable invocation spec.
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%, and the single 'profile' parameter is completely unexplained in both schema and description. The name is ambiguous — it could mean a store profile, a user profile, or a preset — and since it defaults to null, the agent cannot tell what omitting it does. The description should compensate here and does not.
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 names the exact data resources (WordPress.org plugins, Firefox Add-ons, GitHub stars) and the metrics returned, so the subject matter is clear. But it never states the action — no verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve' — and the name 'store_stats' alone would not tell an agent what is produced. Sibling differentiation is only implicit, since the sibling tools are all SEO/traffic tools and this one is clearly off-topic.
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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. An agent has to infer usage purely from the list of data sources. The 'need no keys' note hints at a prerequisite but is not framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.