Staats

Record annotation

record_annotation

Mark a moment on a site timeline: a deploy, a content change, or a campaign start. Call this every time you ship a change to the site. ts defaults to now. Write a specific, present-tense description ("Shipped new pricing page hero", never "updates"), one annotation per meaningful change. When known, include commit and the routes the change touched so compare_around can also report before/after traffic scoped to those routes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ts`	No	ISO timestamp of the change; defaults to now
`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.
`text`	Yes	specific, present-tense description of the change
`commit`	No	git commit hash of the deploy (7-40 hex chars)
`routes`	No	route prefixes the change touched, e.g. ['/docs', '/pricing'] ('/docs' covers '/docs/*')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`ts`	Yes
`meta`	No
`site`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`recorded`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already communicate non-idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: call frequency, one annotation per change, required text style, and how including commit/routes affects compare_around. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: tool purpose, when to call, text quality rule, and optional enrichment rationale. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource and contains no filler or tautology.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 5-parameter, 1-required tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers the call trigger, content standards, and the rationale for optional fields. The only unresolvable details (site code handling, return value) are already covered by the schema and output schema respectively.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of commit and routes ('so compare_around can also report before/after traffic scoped to those routes') and by prescribing text format with a concrete example and a counterexample. It does not add much for ts or site, but the schema already documents those.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a moment on a site timeline' with concrete event types (deploy, content change, campaign start). It also clearly differentiates from siblings by positioning list_annotations as the reading counterpart and compare_around as a downstream consumer.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this every time you ship a change to the site' and adds guidance like 'one annotation per meaningful change'. It also explains how commit and routes benefit compare_around, but it never explicitly names when-not-to-use alternatives, so exclusions are left largely to inference.

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?