Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Privatrak

by com.privatrak
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Feature rules

list_feature_rules
Read-onlyIdempotent

The rules that name events as features (conditions on page, element, text, referrer and URL query parameters; every item of conditions must match, and an item {any: [...]} matches when one of its conditions does). Together with data-track attributes in the site's markup they decide what counts as a feature. An event counts toward every feature that names it, so rules may overlap; a feature with no events may simply have no rule.

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": "list_feature_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, from 1.
limitNoItems per page, 1-100. Default 50.
searchNoCase-insensitive substring of the name.
projectNoProject ID, from list_projects. Required when this connection covers more than one project; may be left out when it covers one (and with an API key, which belongs to one project).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior beyond that: rules may overlap because an event counts toward every feature naming it, and a feature with no events may simply have no rule — this prevents an agent from misreading an empty or short result as an error.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single dense paragraph with no wasted filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded. But the long parenthetical on matching semantics is heavy reading for a chunk that never gets to the tool's actual list behavior, so structure could be tighter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should indicate what a call returns, yet it never describes the returned shape or pagination behavior despite exposing page/limit. The domain semantics it does provide partly compensate, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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% (page, limit, search, project are all documented in the schema, including the project-required-when-multi-project nuance), so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, such as whether search matches rule names or feature names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description defines the resource precisely (rules that map events to features, with the AND/ANY matching semantics), which is genuinely useful context. However, it never states the operation itself — that this tool lists/returns a paginated collection of those rules — so the verb is only recoverable from the name. It also does no work to separate this from the sibling list_features, which an agent must discriminate against.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives. The most likely confusion, list_features (the features themselves) vs list_feature_rules (the rules naming them), is never addressed, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given.

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

All Privatrak 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