Per-listing daily views + leads (deltas) over a date range, plus totals. Keyset-paginated.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "analytics_listings"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| from | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Keyset-paginated" is a genuine behavioral disclosure (cursor-based paging, not offset) and "deltas" hints that lead figures are incremental rather than cumulative, but nothing is said about auth/permission scope, date-range limits, timezone, or whether listings with zero activity are returned.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and closed with the pagination model — no filler. The terse fragment style slightly hurts readability but every clause carries 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?
For a read-only analytics tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition explains the metric set and pagination but leaves the response shape, granularity boundaries, and default date-range behavior unspecified. It is enough to call the tool, not enough to predict its output.
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 50%: from/to are documented as YYYY-MM-DD, while limit and cursor have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by tying the tool to a date range and by declaring keyset pagination, which explains the cursor, but it never explains what limit does or what the cursor encodes.
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?
"Per-listing daily views + leads (deltas) over a date range, plus totals" names the resource (listings), the metrics (views, leads), the granularity (daily, per-listing) and the aggregation (totals). It implicitly separates itself from an aggregate sibling like analytics_summary, but never names it, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase "per-listing ... over a date range"; there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when to prefer analytics_summary or list_listings instead. An agent can guess this is the breakdown tool, but the definition does not confirm or exclude anything.
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.