portfolio_overviewVisitors and pageviews for every site this account can use, owned and shared alike, with change vs the previous period, busiest first. Shared sites are flagged. period: '7d' default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | relative period like '24h', '7d' (default), '4w' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sites | Yes | ||
| period | Yes | ||
| account | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses sorting behavior (busiest first), comparison semantics (change vs the previous period), inclusion of shared sites, and flagging behavior for shared sites. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's output shape and behavior without needing to invoke it.
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 entire relevant behavior is captured in one compact sentence, with the most important content (what is returned) front-loaded and the default parameter appended at the end. Every clause adds value: scope, metrics, comparison, ordering, and shared-site flagging.
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 read-only, single-optional-parameter portfolio summary with an output schema present, the description covers all essential decision factors: metric types, site scope, comparison delta, ordering, shared-site flagging, and default period. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 already fully documents the single 'period' parameter with examples and the default value. The description repeats the '7d' default but does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the resource (every site this account can use), the metrics returned (visitors, pageviews), and the temporal comparison, with a clear scope spanning owned and shared sites. It distinguishes itself from the 'get_overview' sibling by emphasizing portfolio-wide aggregation across all accessible sites.
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?
The description implies usage for portfolio-wide traffic analysis and explicitly notes that shared sites are included and flagged, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus get_overview or list_sites. Usage context is clear enough to infer, but the description stops short of explicit routing guidance.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.