Return the full definition of one funnel by id: name, description, ordered steps, and conversion window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| funnelId | Yes | Funnel id from list_funnels or create_funnel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds which data fields are returned (name, description, steps, conversion window), enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste. All information is relevant and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but the description lists return fields (name, description, steps, conversion window), which is sufficient for a simple read operation. Does not cover error cases or rate limits, but that is acceptable for a straightforward getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (funnelId) with 100% schema coverage. The description mentions retrieval by ID but adds no meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 since schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns the full definition of a funnel by ID, listing specific fields (name, description, ordered steps, conversion window). Distinguishes from siblings like list_funnels (lists all) and create_funnel (creates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The purpose is implied as a simple getter by ID, but there is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools like compute_funnel for metrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All tools have clearly distinct purposes. Funnel operations (compute, create, delete, get, list, update) are well-separated from event tools (events_count, recent_events) and pageview tools (pageviews_count, top_pages, top_referrers). Composite snapshots (user_activity, weekly_digest) and utility tools (get_usage, list_projects) are unique.
Naming pattern is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (compute_funnel, create_funnel), others noun_verb (events_count, pageviews_count), and some are adjective_noun (recent_events, top_pages) or noun_noun (user_activity, weekly_digest). While readable, the lack of a consistent convention reduces predictability.
15 tools is at the upper boundary of 'well-scoped' but still appropriate for an analytics platform. Each tool serves a necessary function without unnecessary duplication, though a few more could be justified.
The tool set covers core analytics operations: CRUD for funnels, event and pageview counting, top pages/referrers, user and weekly snapshots, and project/usage info. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no session-level detail), but overall it addresses common analytics queries well.
