Click analytics for a link: totals, daily series, top countries, devices, browsers, referrers. Bot traffic is excluded. Requires analytics:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| to | No | YYYY-MM-DD (default: today) | |
| from | No | YYYY-MM-DD (default: 30 days before to) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that bot traffic is excluded and the required auth scope. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It could mention rate limits or data freshness, but the current disclosure is adequate.
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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose and data returned, the second clarifies exclusions and requirements. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.
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 description covers the main outputs, auth scope, and bot exclusion. With no output schema, it does a good job setting expectations. Minor gaps include not specifying how many top items are returned or whether results are paginated, but overall sufficient for an analytics 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?
The description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 67%, with 'to' and 'from' described as date strings; the description does not elaborate on 'id' or date defaults. The description compensates slightly by describing the output context, but for parameters specifically, it adds no value.
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 returns 'click analytics for a link' and enumerates specific components: totals, daily series, top countries, devices, browsers, referrers. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_link (which likely returns link metadata) and list_links.
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 states the required scope ('analytics:read'), providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like get_link or list_links; the context is implied by the tool name and sibling list.
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 operation (create, delete, update, list, etc.) on specific resources (links, folders, tags, analytics). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_link, list_folders, and get_link_analytics. No deviations or mixed styles.
With 12 tools, the server covers the essential operations for a URL shortener (CRUD, analytics, QR codes, folders, tags) without being bloated or incomplete.
The tool set provides full lifecycle management for short links (create, read, update, delete, enable/disable), plus analytics, folders, tags, QR generation, and account usage. No obvious gaps.
