workspace_primary_agent_dashboardReads product dashboard for the primary Agent, not a Workspace-wide aggregate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Window length in days for the primary Agent's traffic dashboard. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| dashboard | Yes | ||
| workspace_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $defs / AgentAnalyticsSummary / properties / anonymous_percentageRemoved value: -{
- "default": 0,
- "title": "Anonymous Percentage",
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / $defs / AgentAnalyticsSummary / properties / identified_percentageRemoved value: -{
- "default": 0,
- "title": "Identified Percentage",
- "type": "number"
-}Input schema / properties / days / descriptionAdded value: +"Window length in days for the primary Agent's traffic dashboard."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are per-Agent rather than aggregated, but says nothing about the data window semantics, freshness, or what the dashboard contains.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope distinction, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing the key differentiation.
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?
An output schema exists and the sole parameter is fully documented, so return values and argument semantics need not be explained. The remaining gap is that 'product dashboard' is not characterized at all, but for a read-only single-param tool this is close to sufficient.
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?
Only one optional parameter, and the schema already documents 'days' with default 30 and bounds 1-365 at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable since the schema carries it fully.
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 (Reads) and resource (product dashboard) scoped to the primary Agent, and explicitly negates the Workspace-wide aggregate reading. An agent can tell it apart conceptually from aggregate siblings, though it never names the sibling that provides the aggregate view.
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 negative clause 'not a Workspace-wide aggregate' implies when to choose this tool, but it never names the alternative (e.g. workspace_usage) or states when the aggregate is preferable. Usage is inferable rather than directed.
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.