Statable Analytics

Funnel report

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

Name	Required	Description
`site`	No	Numeric 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.
`period`	No	"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.
`filters`	No	Optional SEGMENT filters (session-level only: country/browser/os/device/source/channel/utm_*/entry_page/exit_page/hostname). Event-level fields are rejected.
`funnel_id`	Yes	Funnel id from list_funnels.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 7, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / period / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "array"
+]
```
First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals the exact JSON response shape, states that steps are ordered, and clarifies that conversion_rate is cumulative from the entering step rather than step-to-step, with dropoff relative to the previous step. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then output format and metric semantics, then the prerequisite. There is no filler, repetition of annotations, or unnecessary schema re-statement.

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, the description fully compensates by providing the return shape and the precise definitions of conversion_rate and dropoff. Combined with 100% parameter schema coverage, the agent has everything needed 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 input schema already documents site, period, filters, and funnel_id in detail. The description adds only the sequencing hint to obtain funnel_id from list_funnels, which mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (Run), a specific resource (saved conversion funnel), and a distinctive result type (per-step, NON-tabular). This clearly differentiates it from list_funnels or create_funnel and makes the tool's function unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to get funnel_id from list_funnels first, establishing the correct call sequence. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with query_stats or other tabular reporting alternatives, so it stops just short of full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Statable Analytics 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?