Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Refora

by ai.refora
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Visibility trend

get_visibility_trend
Read-onlyIdempotent

Visibility over time for the workspace's own brand.

Use this tool when the user asks about changes over time -- phrases like 'how has it changed', 'trending', 'are we improving', 'show the trend', or 'over the last month'. Do NOT use for the current snapshot (use get_visibility_score) or competitors (use get_competitor_comparison).

Returns one data point per period and a trend summary. A period with no AI answers has a null visibility, not 0. Max 90 days.

Example: 'How has our AI visibility changed over the last 30 days?'

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_visibility_trend"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoHow many days back to look, counted back from end_date (default today). Default 30, max 90. Ignored when start_date is given. Prompts are re-run on a schedule, so a window shorter than a week can be empty.
end_dateNoOptional end of the window, as an ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Default today. Cannot be in the future.
resolutionNoLength of each period. Default 'week': prompts run on a schedule, so 'day' leaves empty periods.week
start_dateNoOptional explicit start of the window, as an ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). A full ISO datetime is accepted and its date is used. Overrides days.
workspace_idYesThe workspace's numeric id, as returned by list_workspaces.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the description's credit comes from added context: one data point per period plus a trend summary, null visibility (not 0) for empty periods, and a hard 90-day ceiling. It doesn't say anything about how the 'trend summary' is shaped or how sparse data is aggregated, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose statement, then usage, then returns, then an example — a clean scannable structure with no filler sentences. Every line carries routing or behavioral information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and five parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: period granularity, trend summary, null semantics, and the 90-day limit. The remaining gap is the unspecified structure of the trend summary and whether data is complete up to the current day.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so days/end_date/resolution/start_date precedence and the 'day resolution leaves empty periods' caveat are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 90-day cap and implies a 30-day window via its example, adding little beyond the structured data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific verb+resource+scope: time-series visibility for the workspace's own brand. It is immediately distinguishable from get_visibility_score (snapshot) and get_competitor_comparison, which the description names directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use with concrete user phrasing ('how has it changed', 'trending', 'over the last month'), plus explicit when-NOT-to-use clauses naming the two sibling tools to use instead. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Refora toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources