Retrieve summary statistics on DREF operations, providing key figures on appeals and emergencies.
Get summary statistics about DREF operations
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_dref_statistics"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get summary statistics' without disclosing what statistics are included, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The tool name and description imply a read operation but offer no specifics about the data source or aggregation method.
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, direct sentence that fully communicates the high-level purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the object 'summary statistics about DREF operations,' which is exactly as concise as needed.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It communicates the basic function but remains vague about what specific statistics are returned. The tool is simple enough that this may suffice, but a slightly more detailed description would improve completeness.
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, which is the baseline for this dimension. There is no additional semantic meaning needed since there is nothing to specify. The description adds no parameter details because none exist; the schema coverage is effectively complete.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving summary statistics about DREF operations. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools that list specific DREF subsets (completed/ongoing) or search by criteria. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives or provide context such as 'use this when you need aggregated data instead of individual operation lists.' The absence of any usage direction leaves the agent to infer it from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.