Chrome-Stats

Get historical trends

get_trends

Read-onlyIdempotent

Daily history of install count and rating for one extension or app. The number of days available depends on the plan on this API key; requesting more returns the maximum allowed.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_trends"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Chrome extension ID, Edge add-on ID, Firefox add-on slug/GUID, Android package name, or Apple App Store app ID. For example bmnlcjabgnpnenekpadlanbbkooimhnj or com.joinhoney.honeyandroid.
`numDays`	No	Days of history to return.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the available window depends on the API key's plan, and over-requesting silently clamps to the maximum rather than erroring. It doesn't describe rate limits or the shape of returned records, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the one non-obvious constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does name the metrics returned (install count, rating) at daily granularity. It leaves the per-record structure and how trends are bounded by the plan's actual window implicit, a minor gap for a two-parameter read 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the plan-dependent constraint on numDays (requests beyond entitlement are clamped), which is mild extra meaning but not syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: daily history of install count and rating for a single extension/app. This clearly separates it from get_extension (presumably current metadata) and compare_extensions (multi-item). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it falls just under a 5.

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 phrase 'for one extension or app' implicitly signals single-item lookup versus compare_extensions, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

All Chrome-Stats tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?