motion_statsRequires a Dev Key ($39) or Agency plan ($249/mo) on the hosted endpoint (motionspec.dev/pricing). Summary of routing/compile telemetry (counts per outcome). Escalation clusters indicate which new primitive the catalog needs next.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds access/plan requirements and clarifies the output type ('counts per outcome'). This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying relevant information: access requirement, telemetry summary, and interpretation of escalation clusters. The core purpose is slightly delayed by the pricing sentence, so it is not fully front-loaded.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers access, the response shape in broad terms, and the meaning of escalation clusters. It would be more complete with a little more detail on the shape of the response, but it is sufficient for 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?
There are no parameters to document, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning.
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 states a clear resource — routing/compile telemetry — and defines the result as a summary with counts per outcome. It is distinguishable from siblings via the word 'telemetry', though it does not explicitly contrast with motion_audit or motion_validate.
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 context is implied: 'Escalation clusters indicate which new primitive the catalog needs next' suggests it is for catalog planning, and the Dev Key/Agency plan requirement sets access conditions. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs motion_audit/motion_validate' guidance or exclusion of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct phase in the motion-spec workflow: auditing a live URL, browsing the primitive catalog, validating a spec, compiling it, and viewing telemetry. The only potential overlap is that compile also validates, but the descriptions clearly separate validation as a pre-check and compile as the code-generation step.
All tools share the consistent 'motion_' prefix, making the family instantly recognizable. The second part mixes verbs (audit, compile, validate) with nouns (catalog, stats), which is a minor deviation from a strict verb_noun pattern but still predictable and easy to navigate.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a domain focused on authoring, validating, compiling, auditing, and monitoring motion specs. Each tool earns its place and the count is squarely in the ideal range for a cohesive server.
The core lifecycle is covered: discover primitives, validate, compile, audit external sites, and review telemetry. The main gap is runtime-motion auditing, which is explicitly deferred to V2, and there is no tool for managing/deploying compiled specs, but these are minor and don't block the primary workflow.