Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Pineprompt

by com.pineprompt
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Source Type Analytics Tool

get-source-type-analytics-tool
Read-onlyIdempotent

Citation breakdown by source-type classification (e.g. blog, news, forum). Unpaginated: one row per source-type enum value. Cannot be scoped by segment.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "get-source-type-analytics-tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTag IDs (prompt classifiers) to limit responses by. Optional.
end_dateYesInclusive UTC end of the analytics window. Must be on or after `start_date` and on or before today.
intervalNoBucket granularity for time-series tools. One of: day, week, month, year. Required for time-series tools, ignored for aggregate tools.
monitorsNoMonitor IDs in the active project. Optional.
countriesNoISO-3166-1 alpha-2 country codes to include. Optional.
platformsNoAI platforms to include. Optional. Values: chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, grok, copilot, claude, google_ai_mode, google_ai_overview.
project_idYesProject to compute analytics for.
start_dateYesInclusive UTC start of the analytics window. ISO 8601 date (YYYY-MM-DD).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add operational context. It does: it discloses that results are unpaginated, cardinality is bounded to the enum values, and segment scoping is unsupported — three facts an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. Return field details are absent, but the row-shape is described.

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, with the identity of the tool front-loaded and the constraints trailing. Every clause carries distinct information: the dimension, the granularity, the cardinality, and the scoping limitation.

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 an eight-parameter aggregate analytics tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious behaviors: no pagination, one row per enum, no segment scoping. The absence of an output schema is partly compensated by the row-shape statement. It could still say more about whether interval is ignored here (it is an aggregate tool), which is left to the schema.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including date bounds, platform enum values, and interval semantics. The description adds only the negative constraint that segment scoping is unavailable, which is a meaningful but small addition. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 metric and dimension: 'Citation breakdown by source-type classification (e.g. blog, news, forum)'. The parenthetical examples make the grouping concept concrete, and it is distinguishable from the URL-level sibling by naming 'source-type classification' rather than URL. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, so it stops short of 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 description gives result-shape and scope constraints ('Unpaginated: one row per source-type enum value', 'Cannot be scoped by segment'), which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and when a segment-scoped alternative is needed. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus the URL-type or list-source-analytics siblings. Usage is implied 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 Pineprompt toolsInspect
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.

Resources