Retrieve real-time waitlist analytics: total signups, referral attribution channels, geographic expansion demand by city/state, email consent rates, and recent activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit_recent | No | Number of recent anonymized entries to return (default: 5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine context by labeling the data 'real-time' and the samples 'anonymized', and it discloses the shape of the returned metrics; however it says nothing about permissions, scope of aggregation, rate limits, or whether the data is workspace-wide or global.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the metric list following; no filler or restated title. The enumeration is dense but every item names a distinct output dimension, so it earns its length.
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 correctly shouldered the job of describing return contents and does so by naming each metric. For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only aggregation scope and data source are missing.
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% — the single parameter limit_recent is fully documented in the schema, including its default of 5. The description's phrase 'recent activity' loosely corresponds but adds no format or bounds information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Retrieve') plus named resource ('waitlist analytics'), and it enumerates the concrete metrics returned (signups, referral channels, geographic demand, consent rates, recent activity). It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling join_waitlist, but the analytics-vs-signup distinction is reasonably inferable.
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 statement of when to use this instead of join_waitlist or any other sibling, and no preconditions or exclusions. The only usage cue is the implied read-only framing of 'Retrieve', which is left for the agent to infer.
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.