OneLence

Verify tracking

onelence_verify_tracking

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks that a site receives tracking events (optionally one event name) and conversions in the last N minutes. Use it after installing or changing tracking, or after onelence_send_test_event.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "onelence_verify_tracking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	No	Site domain (e.g. example.com) or site id. Defaults to the workspace's newest active site.
`minutes`	No	Look-back window (default 60).
`event_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	Yes
`site`	Yes
`since`	Yes
`events`	Yes
`object`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`event_name`	Yes
`last_event`	Yes
`conversions`	Yes
`window_minutes`	Yes
`matching_events`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "conversions": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "event_name": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "events": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "hint": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "last_event": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "properties": {
+            "name": {
+              "anyOf": [
+                {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                {
+                  "type": "null"
+                }
+              ]
+            },
+            "occurred_at": {
+              "anyOf": [
+                {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                {
+                  "type": "null"
+                }
+              ]
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "name",
+            "occurred_at"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "matching_events": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "const": "tracking_status",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "since": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "site": {
+      "properties": {
+        "domain": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "domain"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "receiving",
+        "no_events"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "window_minutes": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "object",
+    "site",
+    "status",
+    "window_minutes",
+    "since",
+    "events",
+    "event_name",
+    "matching_events",
+    "conversions",
+    "last_event",
+    "hint"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile fully: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the check spans events and conversions over a bounded window, which is useful framing, but it does not mention latency, whether verification is eventual, or what a pass/fail outcome looks like. With annotations carrying the mutation semantics, this is adequate rather than rich.

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, zero filler: the first states what is checked and the scope, the second states the trigger conditions. The core purpose is front-loaded before the usage guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be described, and optional parameters with sensible defaults are documented in the schema. What is left thin is the distinction from other read/analytics siblings, which an agent choosing among forty tools would benefit from.

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 67%, with site and minutes already documented in the schema including the default site fallback and 60-minute default. The description only adds the constraint that event_name narrows the check to a single event, which is genuine but marginal added meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a site receives tracking events and conversions within a look-back window. That is materially more precise than the title 'Verify tracking'. It stops short of naming how it differs from data-reading siblings like onelence_get_live or onelence_list_events, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 states concrete trigger conditions: after installing or changing tracking, or after onelence_send_test_event, naming the sibling explicitly. It does not say when not to use it, e.g. whether it is redundant with the live/performance tools for ongoing monitoring.

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

All OneLence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.