Podlings MCP

active_podlings_by_year

Retrieve yearly active podling counts based on lifecycle span, with optional filters for sponsor type and year range.

Instructions

Return yearly active-podling counts based on lifecycle span.

Tool call template

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": "active_podlings_by_year"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	No	HTTPS URL or local path to podlings.xml
`sponsor_type`	No	Optional sponsor type filter, defaults to incubator: incubator, project, or unknown
`start_year`	No	Optional inclusive start year filter
`end_year`	No	Optional inclusive end year filter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only reveals a read-like operation ('return'), but does not explain what 'based on lifecycle span' means, aggregation logic, or if results are computed on the fly. This is insufficient for a transparent behavioral model.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient and free of unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, hence a 4.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no required fields), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the output looks like, what 'yearly' implies, or how the lifecycle span is used. The description is incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the verb 'Return' and resource 'yearly active-podling counts', indicating a counting operation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'active_podlings_in_year', which likely has a similar purpose. A 4 is appropriate as it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context. A score of 2 reflects the lack of usage guidance.

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