Retrieve the number of stars a Backlog user has received, with optional since and until dates to measure recognition within a period.
Returns the count of stars received by a user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Count stars received after this date (yyyy-MM-dd) | |
| until | No | Count stars received before this date (yyyy-MM-dd) | |
| userId | Yes | User ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention date-range filtering, result semantics, or any other operational detail.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose.
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 simple count tool with a fully documented schema and clear safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits what the count represents exactly (total vs. filtered) and provides no indication of return behavior, which would be helpful since there is no output schema.
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%, so the schema already fully documents `userId`, `since`, and `until`. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.
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 gives a clear verb (returns) and resource (count of stars received by a user), which is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling list. It does not explicitly differentiate from other count tools, but none of the siblings cover user-star counts, so disambiguation is not critical.
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 alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the idea of retrieving a count.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.