Flowsery

Get Top Pages

get_pages

Read-only

Get top pages ranked by visitor count. Shows which pages get the most traffic.

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	Pages ranked by visitor count for the selected range and filters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that results are ranked by visitor count, which clarifies the ordering semantics. It does not mention pagination or default limits, but those are already present in the schema.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The core behavior is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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?

Given the large parameter set, complete schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could have added a pointer to sibling tools for other dimensions, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 already documents all 27 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the implicit idea that pagination and filters may apply. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('top pages'), and the ranking criterion ('ranked by visitor count'). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that target other dimensions like browsers, countries, or channels.

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 gives useful context ('shows which pages get the most traffic') but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_breakdown or get_overview. The intended use is implied rather than stated, with no exclusions or alternatives 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?