Retrieve one-to-one writing statistics for a specific recipient by exact name, excluding group history, to match their communication style when drafting replies.
Get one-to-one writing statistics for an exact recipient name, never group history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person | Yes |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the scoping behavior (per-recipient, excluding group history), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what statistics are returned or matching behavior on non-exact names.
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 tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded. 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the scope statement is nearly sufficient; only the name format and match behavior remain unaddressed.
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 single 'person' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds that the name must be exact and 1:1, which is meaningful, but gives no format hints (e.g. whether it is an email, handle, or display name).
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 (one-to-one writing statistics) and scopes it to an exact recipient name, which distinguishes it from the broader get_style_profile / get_persona_summary siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for group or aggregate history, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 phrase 'never group history' implies the tool applies only to individual recipients and that group-level queries belong elsewhere, but it never names the alternative tool or states the condition explicitly. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.