Flowsery

Get Traffic by Channel

get_channels

Read-only

Get marketing channel breakdown — Organic Search, Paid Search, Social, Email, Direct, Referral, Affiliate, etc. GA4-aligned classification.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endAt`	No	ISO 8601 end date (e.g. "2026-01-31")
`limit`	No	Max results (1-1000, default: 100)
`domain`	No	Website domain to query. Required when using a workspace token unless websiteId is provided.
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (default: 0)
`startAt`	No	ISO 8601 start date (e.g. "2026-01-01")
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone (e.g. "America/New_York"). Falls back to site default.
`filter_os`	No	Filter by operating system
`websiteId`	No	Website ID to query. Required when using a workspace token unless domain is provided.
`filter_ref`	No	Filter by ref URL parameter
`filter_via`	No	Filter by via URL parameter
`filter_city`	No	Filter by city
`filter_goal`	No	Filter by goal name
`filter_page`	No	Filter by page path
`filter_device`	No	Filter by device type: desktop, mobile, tablet
`filter_region`	No	Filter by region
`filter_source`	No	Filter by source URL parameter
`filter_browser`	No	Filter by browser name
`filter_channel`	No	Filter by marketing channel
`filter_country`	No	Filter by country
`filter_hostname`	No	Filter by hostname
`filter_referrer`	No	Filter by referrer domain
`filter_utm_term`	No	Filter by UTM term
`filter_entry_page`	No	Filter by entry/landing page
`filter_utm_medium`	No	Filter by UTM medium
`filter_utm_source`	No	Filter by UTM source
`filter_utm_content`	No	Filter by UTM content
`filter_utm_campaign`	No	Filter by UTM campaign

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	Marketing channels with visitor counts.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about GA4-aligned channel classification, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output grouping, default date ranges, or pagination behavior.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output taxonomy, and the channel list is compact and informative.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The input schema is thorough and the output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values or every parameter. However, given the large sibling group and 27 parameters, the description provides minimal guidance on how this tool fits relative to other analytics breakdown tools and does not mention date-range expectations.

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 meaningful value by listing the expected channel categories and noting GA4 alignment, which helps an agent understand what values filter_channel and the returned breakdown will use.

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 clearly states the tool returns a marketing channel breakdown and lists relevant channel categories, making the resource and action specific. It is easy to distinguish from most sibling tools by name and described resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 this tool should be used when a marketing channel breakdown is needed, and the channel list provides context. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to choose this instead of related tools like get_breakdown or get_campaigns, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

All Flowsery 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: get_* tools cover different analytics dimensions (browsers, cities, countries, etc.) with clear scopes, while issue management and tracking tools are clearly separated. Even get_breakdown is explicitly scoped to dimensions without dedicated endpoints, avoiding overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (delete_goals, get_overview, track_goal, update_issue_status). Verbs are specific and predictable (get, delete, track, list, update), and there are no naming style mixes.

Tool Count2/5

At 27 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold considered 'too many.' While the domain is broad (analytics, tracking, issues), many get_* tools could be consolidated into get_breakdown with filter parameters, making the count feel inflated rather than necessarily well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full analytics lifecycle: overview, time series, breakdowns, real-time data, visitor profiles, goal/payment tracking and deletion, plus AI issue listing/detail/status updates. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update for goals/payments, no explicit list of defined goals), but these are non-critical and don't impair typical workflows.

Resources

Need Help?