Flowsery

Track Goal Event

track_goal

Track a custom goal/event for a visitor. The visitor must have at least one recorded pageview. Goal names must be lowercase with only letters, numbers, underscores, and hyphens (max 64 chars).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Goal name — lowercase letters, numbers, underscores, hyphens only (max 64 chars). E.g. "newsletter_signup", "add-to-cart"
`domain`	No	Website domain to query. Required when using a workspace token unless websiteId is provided.
`metadata`	No	Up to 10 custom key-value pairs. Keys: lowercase, max 64 chars. Values: max 255 chars.
`websiteId`	No	Website ID to query. Required when using a workspace token unless domain is provided.
`visitorUid`	No	Visitor UID from the _fs_vid browser cookie

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	Confirmation of the recorded goal event.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write behavior is implied. The description adds useful context beyond annotations via the pageview prerequisite and goal-name validation rules, but it does not disclose failure behavior, side effects beyond recording, or conditions like idempotency.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the prerequisite and validation rule, both of which are operationally useful.

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?

For a tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, prerequisite, and naming constraints. It does not explicitly route between track_goal and track_payment or describe error behavior, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining details.

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?

The input schema already provides full 100% coverage for all five parameters, including the name pattern and domain/websiteId relationship. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the name rule and visitor prerequisite, but it does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Track') and the resource ('a custom goal/event for a visitor'), which is distinct from the get_* read tools and delete_goals. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from track_payment, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives a clear usage context: track a custom goal/event, with a prerequisite that the visitor has at least one recorded pageview. It does not explicit state when not use this tool or name alternatives such as track_payment, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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?