Retrieve task statistics for a Semaphore UI project, optionally filtered by inclusive start/end dates and user ID, to monitor automation outcomes and workload.
Get Task Stats. GET /project/{project_id}/stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | Inclusive date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| start | No | Inclusive date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| user_id | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP route: no explanation of how stats are aggregated, whether the date range is required for meaningful results, or what epoch/units the output uses.
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 short fragments with no padding, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency – the space saved is not reallocated to any information an agent needs.
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?
With four parameters, no output schema, and an undefined return shape, the description leaves the agent unable to predict what it gets back or how to use the filters. For a stats endpoint where the meaning of the response is the whole point, this is a significant gap.
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 coverage is only 50% – user_id and project_id carry no schema descriptions. The description does not compensate: it never explains that user_id scopes stats to a single user, nor how start/end interact with the aggregation. Only the endpoint template hints at project_id.
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 verb and resource ("Get Task Stats") plus the raw endpoint, so the broad purpose is clear. However, "stats" is never defined – an agent cannot tell whether this returns counts by status, durations, or aggregates – and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_template_task_stats.
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 versus get_template_task_stats or list_tasks / list_project_events. The agent must infer from the endpoint path that this is the project-scoped variant, which is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.