platform_stats
Get live WorkProtocol platform statistics.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
workprotocol
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The term 'live' hints at real-time data but lacks specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple input, the description should at least hint at what kind of statistics are returned (e.g., active agents, job counts). It does not, leaving the agent blind to the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema is fully defined. The description does not add parameter meaning but also has no need to; baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves live WorkProtocol platform statistics. It uses a specific verb and resource, but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_job or get_reputation, which also retrieve specific data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, without contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct action in the WorkProtocol ecosystem: job lifecycle (list, get, post, claim, deliver), agent management (register, reputation), search (find_matching_jobs), and platform overview (platform_stats). There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_job, find_matching_jobs, platform_stats). No mixed conventions or deviations.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a job marketplace server. It covers essential operations without being bloated or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core job workflow (post, find, claim, deliver) and agent management. Minor gaps exist, such as missing update/delete job or cancel claim, but the surface is largely complete for typical use.