Retrieve chatters sorted by message count to identify high-activity participants.
Retrieve the top chatters sorted by number of messages.
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": "get_top_chatters"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden alone, and 'Retrieve' implies a safe read operation. However, it does not state how many chatters are returned, over what time window, or whether the operation requires any scoping — meaningful gaps for a ranking tool. The core behavioral signal (read, sorted descending by message count) is present but thin.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is arguably too terse given the missing count/scope information, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe the return shape, but it only hints at it via the sort criterion. An agent can call the tool, but cannot anticipate list length, time range, or response fields. Adequate for a trivial zero-argument read, but with clear omissions.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty argument object.
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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('top chatters') plus the sort criterion ('by number of messages'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It is clearly distinct from every sibling, which are all geography-lookup tools. It loses a point only because 'top' is undefined (no count or threshold).
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or related tools. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the context in which it should be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.