Skip to main content
Glama

Statable Analytics

by com.statable.mcp

funnel_report

Read-only

Run a saved conversion funnel and return its per-step result (NON-tabular). Returns {"funnel":{"id","name","scope"},"entering":N,"all_visitors":N,"steps":[{"index":0,"name":"Visited /pricing","kind":"page","visitors":N,"conversion_rate":percent0to100,"dropoff":N}, ...]}. steps are ORDERED; conversion_rate is cumulative vs the first step (entering), NOT step-to-step; dropoff is visitors lost vs the previous step. Get funnel_id from list_funnels first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNoNumeric site_id (preferred, from list_sites) or a domain, e.g. example.com — scheme, www. and path are ignored when matching. If several sites share the domain the call fails and lists their site_ids. Omit for a single-site key.
periodNo"7d"/"30d", or any "Nd" = last N full days (N = 1..90); "month" = current calendar month to date. Default 30d. Or a custom ["YYYY-MM-DD","YYYY-MM-DD"] pair.
filtersNoOptional SEGMENT filters (session-level only: country/browser/os/device/source/channel/utm_*/entry_page/exit_page/hostname). Event-level fields are rejected.
funnel_idYesFunnel id from list_funnels.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: steps are ordered, conversion_rate is cumulative vs the first step, dropoff is vs previous step, and the exact JSON response shape is provided. This goes well beyond the annotation and leaves little ambiguity about output semantics.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then delivers the exact return shape, key ordering rules, and the prerequisite in a compact, information-dense format. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema present, the description fully explains the return value, including field-level semantics, ordering, and formulas for conversion_rate and dropoff. It also provides the critical prerequisite for obtaining funnel_id and notes a relevant edge case for site disambiguation. The description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly reinforces the schema's parameter guidance (e.g., funnel_id from list_funnels) but does not add meaningful new meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. The main added value is about output interpretation, not parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('a saved conversion funnel'), and the precise output ('per-step result (NON-tabular)'). It also distinguishes itself from table-style query tools by emphasizing NON-tabular and from funnel management tools like list_funnels by focusing on execution and report generation.

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 prerequisite: 'Get funnel_id from list_funnels first.' It also conveys that this is the tool for running a saved funnel and getting per-step results, which differentiates it from query_stats and funnel creation/update tools. It does not explicitly list 'when not to use' alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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

All Statable Analytics toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resources and actions: sites, goals, funnels, tracking settings, filters, and statistics. Some ambiguity exists between the generic query_stats and the many top_* / visitors_over_time convenience queries, but the descriptions mostly clarify when each should be used.

Naming Consistency3/5

The CRUD tools consistently use create_, get_, list_, and update_ prefixes, but a sizable minority deviate: top_* forms a separate pattern, and current_visitors, funnel_report, and visitors_over_time are noun-phrase names rather than verb_noun.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools sits at the heavy end for an analytics server. Many top_* tools overlap with what query_stats could do, making the count feel somewhat inflated, though the domain is broad enough that the number is not unreasonable.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers site management, goals, funnels, tracking, filters, and statistics well. However, there are no delete operations for sites, goals, or funnels, leaving an obvious lifecycle gap and no way to clean up configured resources.

Resources