get_live_visitorsGet currently active visitors and sessions seen in the live activity window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Currently active visitor/session records in the live activity window. | |
| meta | Yes | Site and rate-limit metadata for the current MCP call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 that it returns data from the live window, but no additional behavioral details such as data freshness or limits.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
Given no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details. The empty schema is fully documented.
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 it retrieves 'currently active visitors and sessions' from the 'live activity window'. The verb 'get' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools focused on campaigns, errors, etc.
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 implies usage for real-time monitoring but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sessions or get_site_stats.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct analytics dimension (anomalies, campaigns, errors, funnels, live visitors, notifications, scroll depth, sessions, site stats) with clear boundaries. Even overlapping concepts (sessions list vs detail vs live) are separated by distinct functionality.
All tool names follow the consistent 'get_<resource>' pattern in snake_case, making it predictable for an agent to infer the purpose of each tool from the name alone.
13 tools is well-scoped for an analytics server covering site stats, sessions, funnels, campaigns, errors, and real-time data. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary complexity.
The set covers the major analytics domains (traffic, engagement, campaigns, errors, funnels, real-time). Minor gaps exist, such as missing tools for goal/conversion tracking beyond funnels, but core workflows are well supported.