Retrieve high-level summary statistics from the Microsoft Sticky Notes database to quickly assess note counts and overall data volume without manual queries.
Get high-level summary statistics of Microsoft Sticky Notes database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but it only does so implicitly: 'Get' signals a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is the main trait that matters here. It does not disclose what the statistics cover (e.g., whether deleted or restored notes are counted, whether the scope is the whole database or a filtered subset), leaving a modest gap for a zero-argument tool.
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 repetition of the title. It is efficient, though so terse that it could have absorbed one more clause of scope without losing conciseness.
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 the description is not obligated to enumerate return values, and for a simple zero-arg read tool the current text is nearly sufficient. However, with no annotations and no statement of what 'high-level summary statistics' comprises or over what scope, an agent cannot predict the contents beyond the schema shape.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies the call needs no input, matching the empty schema.
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 ('Get') and resource ('high-level summary statistics of Microsoft Sticky Notes database'), which is clearly distinct from the note-level CRUD siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like list_notes or search_notes, which could also surface aggregate-ish information, 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?
There is no guidance on when to reach for get_stats versus list_notes, search_notes, or export_notes. For a tool that exists purely to answer 'how many / how much' questions, a single sentence saying it is the aggregate-view entry point would have been easy and valuable, but it is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.