Visits, page views, enquiry submissions, button clicks, top pages and traffic sources for the published site over the last 30 days.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "site_analytics"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts the annotations don't: the data is scoped to the published site only and covers a fixed rolling 30-day window, which materially affects how results should be interpreted. It does not explain granularity (daily vs aggregate) or freshness, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the metric list first and the scope/time constraint last; every clause (published site, last 30 days) carries information an agent needs.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does by enumerating the metric families. The remaining gap is the shape of those returns — per-day series vs single aggregate, and how 'top pages' or 'traffic sources' are ranked/limited — which an agent may need to interpret results.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on scope and window, avoiding noise.
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 names the exact resource (analytics for the published site: visits, page views, enquiries, button clicks, top pages, traffic sources) and the time window, which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like leads_summary or publication_status. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'Retrieve'), but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for site traffic metrics, and the mention of 'enquiry submissions' hints at overlap with leads_summary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement about which alternative to prefer for enquiry/lead counts.
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.