Obtain real-time platform metrics including user count and task count to monitor operations and workload.
获取平台统计数据（人数、任务数等）
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_platform_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.11Does 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 states the purpose and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any potential side effects. 'Get platform statistics' conveys no behavioral traits beyond the obvious intent.
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, compact sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary detail.
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?
Despite the tool's low complexity (zero params, no output schema), the description is vague due to '等' (etc.) and does not enumerate the exact statistics or describe the response format. It leaves the agent guessing about the return structure and the full set of data provided.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description's examples ('人数、任务数等') hint at the kind of data returned but add no parameter-specific meaning, which is not required given the empty schema.
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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get) and identifies the resource as '平台统计数据' (platform statistics) with examples like '人数、任务数等'. It clearly indicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools—none of which appear to overlap significantly.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.