SurveyHub-MCP

Quake Service Aggregation

quake_service_aggregation

Aggregate Quake service data by fields like country or service, with optional filters for IP lists and time ranges.

Instructions

Run Quake service aggregation query with /api/v3/aggregation/quake_service.

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": {
      "query": "<query>",
      "aggregation_list": "<aggregation_list>"
    },
    "name": "quake_service_aggregation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rule`	No	Service data collection rule name for IP-list collections.
`size`	No	Aggregation bucket count per field.
`query`	Yes	Quake query, for example country:"China".
`latest`	No	Whether to use latest data.
`ip_list`	No	Comma-separated IP list.
`end_time`	No	UTC end time, for example 2020-10-14 00:00:00.
`start_time`	No	UTC start time, for example 2020-10-14 00:00:00.
`ignore_cache`	No	Whether to ignore cached data.
`aggregation_list`	Yes	One or two comma-separated aggregation fields, for example service or country,service.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.17.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or data behavior (e.g., whether data is cached or time-bound).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does front-load the action but omits any useful detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain return values, when to use aggregation vs. other searches, or how to interpret results. It is notably incomplete for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the tool name and endpoint.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool runs a Quake service aggregation query and includes the API endpoint. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like quake_search or quake_aggregation_fields.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quake_search or quake_service_scroll. No context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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