Read aggregate recorded human scans for one owned code. Default period is 28 days; history follows the current plan. Scans are not conversions or unique people.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| to | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| from | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / daysAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / fromAdded value: +{
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / id / formatAdded value: +"uuid"Input schema / properties / id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Input schema / properties / toAdded value: +{
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: the data is aggregate, human-only (excluding bot scans), and represents scans rather than conversions or unique people, plus a default 28-day window. It still omits return shape and pagination.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by useful scope qualifiers. No filler, though each sentence is dense and could be marginally clearer on parameter interaction.
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 analytics tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is measured and the default window, which is the essential context. It falls short on the date-range parameter semantics and does not address limits or response granularity, so an agent could still mis-specify the period.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It hints that 'id' is the owned code and that a 28-day default period exists, but never explains how days, from, and to interact or which takes precedence, leaving three of four parameters effectively undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and object ('Read aggregate recorded human scans') scoped to one owned code, and clarifies what the data is not ('not conversions or unique people'). This distinguishes it from compare_qr_codes, though it never names or explicitly routes against that sibling.
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 gives the default period (28 days) and notes history depends on the plan, which implies usage context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to compare_qr_codes or simulate_scan as alternatives for different needs.
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.