Pineprompt

List Source Url Analytics Tool

list-source-url-analytics-tool

Read-onlyIdempotent

Per-URL aggregates: the percentage of analyzed responses in the window that cited each URL, and the average citation count for each URL per analyzed response. Paginated.

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": "list-source-url-analytics-tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	1-indexed page number. Defaults to 1.
`tags`	No	Tag IDs (prompt classifiers) to limit responses by. Optional.
`sort_by`	No	Sort key. One of: used_percentage, average_citations. Defaults to used_percentage.
`end_date`	Yes	Inclusive UTC end of the analytics window. Must be on or after `start_date` and on or before today.
`interval`	No	Bucket granularity for time-series tools. One of: day, week, month, year. Required for time-series tools, ignored for aggregate tools.
`monitors`	No	Monitor IDs in the active project. Optional.
`per_page`	No	Page size, 1-100. Defaults to 25.
`sort_dir`	No	asc or desc. Defaults to desc.
`countries`	No	ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 country codes to include. Optional.
`platforms`	No	AI platforms to include. Optional. Values: chatgpt, perplexity, gemini, grok, copilot, claude, google_ai_mode, google_ai_overview.
`project_id`	Yes	Project to compute analytics for.
`start_date`	Yes	Inclusive UTC start of the analytics window. ISO 8601 date (YYYY-MM-DD).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context by stating the denominator is 'analyzed responses in the window' and that counts are per analyzed response, which clarifies what is being aggregated. It does not disclose ordering guarantees, empty-result behavior, or anything about filter combination, so it adds only moderate value beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, metric definitions front-loaded before the pagination note, with no filler. The trailing fragment 'Paginated.' is terse to the point of being under-explained, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 12 fully documented parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description's job is to define the result shape, and it does exactly that for both metrics. What remains unexplained (filter semantics, granularity) is already covered by the schema text, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by defining what the sort_by enum values actually mean: 'percentage of analyzed responses ... that cited each URL' and 'average citation count for each URL per analyzed response.' That definitional link between the returned metrics and the sort keys is real added meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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 names a specific resource (per-URL aggregates) and enumerates the two metrics returned: used_percentage and average_citations. An agent can tell this is a citation-usage aggregate over URLs rather than a time-series or prompt-level tool, but the description never names or contrasts the close siblings such as list-source-url-prompt-analytics-tool or get-source-url-type-analytics-tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to pick this over the prompt-level or type-level source URL analytics tools, nor when the usage time-series variant is the better fit. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'Paginated,' which tells the agent nothing about selection or prerequisites.

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

All Pineprompt 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.

Resources

Need Help?