project_usageRetrieve download and usage statistics for a project by ID, with an optional period filter such as month. Use it to track adoption and measure project activity.
Get download/usage statistics for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | month | |
| project_id | 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state that explicitly and omits auth requirements, data source (Drupal.org vs. local), and whether results are cached or rate-limited. Behavioral context is 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 sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
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?
The output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. However, with no annotations, no schema parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the definition leaves the agent to infer period semantics and project_id format. It is minimally viable but incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only indirectly references project_id ('for a project') and never mentions the 'period' parameter, its default, or accepted values. This is a material gap for correct invocation.
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+resource: 'Get download/usage statistics for a project.' It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby inventory/module tools (e.g., module_get, release_history) or clarify that 'project' means a Drupal.org project. Sibling differentiation is absent.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description does not say when this tool is preferable to module_get, release_history, or other project-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as a valid project machine name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.