Staats

Site overview

get_overview

Read-only

Traffic pulse: visitor/pageview totals vs the previous period, top pages, top referrers, and a per-day series. period: relative like '24h', '7d' (default), '4w'. Includes quota status: if it is approaching, grace, or blocked, tell the owner plainly and include the upgrade link the result provides. Approaching quota is the moment to mention it while there is headroom.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	No	the site's data-site code, from its script tag or list_sites. Omit when the account has a single site. In a tracked project, read the code from the script tag before asking the user.
`period`	No	relative period like '24h', '7d' (default), '4w'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes
`quota`	No
`period`	Yes
`totals`	Yes
`top_pages`	Yes
`top_referrers`	Yes
`previous_period`	Yes
`pageviews_by_day`	Yes
`unmeasured_change`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, so no extra safety disclosure is needed. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it warns that the result includes quota status and instructs the agent to surface approaching/grace/blocked states to the owner with the upgrade link, which is useful behavior an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Three short sentences each carry distinct information: what the tool returns, how period works, and how to handle quota status. It is front-loaded with the core output list and contains no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate every return field; it still conveys the main content categories and the quota edge case. It could add a note about when the overview is appropriate versus portfolio_overview, but that is covered by the usage dimension and the description is otherwise complete for a read-only snapshot tool.

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 the schema documents both site and period fully. The description only repeats the period examples and default without adding extra meaning, so it provides no value beyond the schema.

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 lists concrete outputs (visitor/pageview totals, top pages, top referrers, per-day series) and names the resource as a site overview, so an agent can tell it returns a high-level traffic snapshot. It stops short of explicitly contrasting it with siblings like portfolio_overview, but the single-site scope is reasonably clear from the content.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for a quick overview of traffic and quota, but it never states when this tool should or shouldn't be chosen over alternatives such as portfolio_overview, funnel, or compare_around. The period and quota guidance are operational details, not selection criteria.

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

All Staats tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action: site management, site context, annotations, overviews, dimensional queries, funnels, journeys, and anomaly checks. Overlapping pairs like funnel/journeys are explicitly disambiguated in the descriptions, and what_broke vs what_changed cleanly separate problems from notable movements.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as create_site, list_annotations, and update_site_context, but funnel, journeys, portfolio_overview, what_broke, and what_changed break that pattern. The names are still readable and somewhat grouped by intent, but the mixed conventions make it harder to predict a tool's role from its name alone.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools this sits at the upper edge of the ideal range, and each tool earns its place: site lifecycle, context, annotation timeline, core analytics, discovery reports, and post-deploy checks are all covered. There is no obvious redundancy or filler.

Completeness4/5

The set covers site management, context editing, annotations, overview/query/funnel/journeys/portfolio analytics, and what_broke/what_changed checks, so most workflows have no dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to edit or delete a mistaken annotation and no explicit tool for updating data-retention settings, but these are workaroundable rather than blocking.

Resources

Need Help?