List active funnels defined on a project. A funnel is a saved ordered sequence of steps (events or pageview paths) that Convalytics computes step-by-step conversion for. Soft-deleted funnels are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project name (case-insensitive, e.g. 'slopbench') or project id from list_projects. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that soft-deleted funnels are excluded and defines what a funnel is, adding value beyond 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (active, no soft-deleted) and defines a funnel. Missing output structure, but adequate for a list tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the 'project' parameter; it only explains what a funnel is. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states 'List active funnels defined on a project.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (funnels), and scope (active, excluding soft-deleted). This differentiates from siblings like get_funnel (single funnel) and create_funnel.
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?
The description provides clear context that this tool lists active, non-soft-deleted funnels. It implicitly tells when to use it (when needing a list of funnels), but does not explicitly mention alternatives for single funnel retrieval or when not to use it.
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.
