get_mcp_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one important trait ('Requires authentication') and enumerates the returned metrics, which is real behavioral value. However, it omits permissions scope beyond auth, rate limits, and whether the returned window is inclusive.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return summary and auth note. No filler, padding, or restated name/title content.

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, enumerating total calls, success rate, average latency, top tools, and top genes is genuinely useful return-value coverage, and the auth requirement is stated. A simple one-param read tool is adequately described, though permissions/rate-limit context is absent.

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?

Only one optional parameter (days) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the default of 7. The description adds no format or boundary detail (e.g., max days) beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('MCP Server call analytics') with a scope qualifier ('for a given time period'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_gene_stats or get_arena_rankings by naming MCP server analytics explicitly, though it does not call out those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('call analytics'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternative among the many get_* siblings. An agent can infer the context but must guess at boundaries.

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