Get click analytics for a specific smart link.
Returns click counts broken down by country, device, referrer,
and day for the specified period. Does NOT modify any data.
Common errors:
- Smart link not found: check the ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Does NOT modify any data'. It also discloses a common error (smart link not found), adding helpful context beyond the 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?
The description is concise (four short sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a useful error section. No waste or redundancy.
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?
For a read-only stats tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides purpose, breakdowns, and a common error. It could mention the period parameter explicitly, but the schema covers that.
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?
The schema descriptions are present but the tool description itself provides no parameter details beyond mentioning 'specified period'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.
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 the tool gets click analytics for a specific smart link and lists the breakdown dimensions (country, device, referrer, day). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_aggregate_stats, which suggests aggregate stats.
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 a single smart link but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It would benefit from noting that aggregate stats are available via get_aggregate_stats, but the context is clear enough.
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.