get_statsRetrieve database statistics to monitor recommendation health and analyze usage patterns.
データベースの統計情報を取得します
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_stats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'retrieve,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not confirm safety, describe the nature of the statistics, or disclose any potential side effects or limitations.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence with no fluff, but it is also under-specified—'statistics information' is vague and leaves the agent guessing about what exactly is retrieved. This is under-specification, not effective 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain the return format and scope of the statistics. It does not, and it also lacks any mention of when the tool is relevant relative to the sibling skill-related tools. The minimal context is insufficient for confident 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there are no inputs needed, and the schema confirms 100% coverage with no properties to document.
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 clearly identifies the action (取得/retrieve) and resource (データベースの統計情報/database statistics), and the tool name 'get_stats' aligns. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the siblings are about skills and categories, so the distinction is apparent enough.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention suitable contexts, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like search_skills or list_categories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.