Visitor countries ranked by pageviews, with the country name ("XX" is unknown).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows. Default 10. | |
| range | No | Lookback window such as "24h", "7d" or "30d" (max 90d). Default "7d". | |
| domain | No | Which of the account's sites, like example.com. Defaults to the site chosen at sign-in. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the "XX" unknown-country sentinel, which an agent needs in order to interpret results correctly.
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 that states the ranking dimension first and appends the data-quirk caveat. No filler, nothing to trim.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description conveys the result shape (countries ranked descending by pageviews) and the sentinel value, while the schema and annotations cover inputs and safety. Sort direction and result count are left implicit, a minor gap for a simple analytics list 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so limit, range, and domain are already fully documented (defaults, max 90d, sign-in fallback) in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific resource (visitor countries) and the ranking metric (pageviews), which clearly separates it from top_browsers/top_pages/top_sources/top_systems. It does not explicitly name a sibling it excludes, but the resource noun does the differentiating work.
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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is given. Usage is only implied by the naming convention shared with the other top_* siblings, so an agent can infer the context but gets no routing help.
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.