Calculate bibliography statistics from a CSL-YAML file, showing total entries and counts per CSL type.
Get bibliography statistics: total entry count and breakdown by CSL type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Absolute path to the CSL-YAML bibliography file (required). Look for "bibliography:" in pandoc.yaml or the YAML frontmatter of .md files. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It conveys a read-only statistical operation and describes the returned summary, but it does not disclose error behavior, file-required assumptions beyond the schema, or whether it is non-mutating explicitly. For a read-only stats tool this is adequate but not rich.
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?
One tight sentence that front-loads the action and immediately specifies the output. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only stats tool, the description plus schema is largely complete: it states what the tool returns and the parameter description tells how to locate the file. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit output summary, but a formal return shape or type names would make it fully complete.
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 description coverage is 100% and the file parameter is well documented with an absolute path and lookup guidance, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantic value but also does not need to.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bibliography statistics'), and immediately specifies the output composition ('total entry count and breakdown by CSL type'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like bib:list, bib:get, and bib:search, which operate on entries rather than aggregate statistics.
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 makes the use case explicit: an agent needing aggregate counts or a CSL-type breakdown should choose this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can distinguish when to use stats rather than list/get/search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.