userPublic profile — total XP, per-language XP, per-machine XP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | ||
| machines | No | XP breakdown by machine | |
| languages | No | XP breakdown by programming language |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "username": "johndoe"
+ },
+ {
+ "username": "alice_dev"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "languages": {
+ "description": "XP breakdown by programming language",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "language": {
+ "description": "Programming language name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "xp": {
+ "description": "XP earned in this language",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "machines": {
+ "description": "XP breakdown by machine",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "machine_name": {
+ "description": "Name of the machine",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "xp": {
+ "description": "XP earned on this machine",
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "user": {
+ "properties": {
+ "total_xp": {
+ "description": "Total XP earned across all languages",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "username": {
+ "description": "Username of the Code::Stats user",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds meaningful context: the profile is 'public' and the exact XP fields returned. This goes beyond the structured annotations.
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, efficient line with no redundant words. However, it is a fragment and could benefit from a verb to clarify the action. It is appropriately sized but slightly under-specified.
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 tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return format is already covered. The description conveys the core data content, but lacks usage guidance and any connection to the input parameter, making it only partially complete.
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 schema has one required 'username' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter or explain how the username is used, leaving the agent to rely on the parameter name alone.
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 tool as returning a public profile with XP breakdowns (total, per-language, per-machine). Although it lacks an explicit verb, the intent is evident. It differentiates from siblings like entity_profile by focusing on user-specific XP data, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the profile contains, without mentioning scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' context.
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.
Most tools have distinct, well-described purposes, but clusters like ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded and the five polymarket_* tools have overlapping scopes that could cause misselection. The beta currently behaves identically to the stable router, and `recent` vs `recent_changes` vs `recent_alerts` are confusingly similar names for different domains.
All names use lowercase underscores, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are verbs (ask, compare, generate), some are nouns (entity_profile, recent, user), and some are adjectives (deep_research). There are coherent subfamilies (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions, remember/recall/forget), but the overall naming is a mix of conventions.
33 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, making the surface heavy and hard to navigate. Many are highly specialized meta-tools (e.g., five Polymarket analyzers) that could be consolidated.
For a server named 'Codestats', only `recent` and `user` address coding stats, leaving major gaps in what that name implies. The broader data/research/betting capabilities are fairly rich, but the server's stated identity is under-served and there's no clear lifecycle coverage for any single domain.