Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NoteKing MCP

NoteKing MCP

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

noteking_get_stats

Retrieve NoteKing system statistics to see totals for notes, standalone notes, pinned notes, projects, and attachments. Use it to monitor workspace inventory at a glance.

Instructions

Get system statistics from NoteKing (total notes, standalone notes, pinned notes, projects, and attachments)

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": "noteking_get_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it is silent on whether the call is read-only, whether it requires authentication, and whether counts are workspace-scoped. It does at least disclose the concrete metrics returned, which partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the returned aggregates in a parenthetical. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

A zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema needs its description to sketch the return shape, and the metric list does that. The remaining gap is scoping and safety context (read-only nature, auth or workspace scope), which is minor for a stats-only call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object at 100% coverage, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is lost.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('system statistics') and then enumerates the exact aggregates returned (total notes, standalone notes, pinned notes, projects, attachments). That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like noteking_get_note or noteking_list_notes, which return individual records rather than counts, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for aggregate/overview questions rather than record retrieval. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no mention of alternatives such as noteking_list_notes for enumeration versus this tool for counting.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools