Submit analytic queries to retrieve Vapi platform data.
Get Vapi analytics
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"queries": "<queries>"
},
"name": "vapi_get_analytics"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only implies a read operation ('Get') without stating whether the analytics request is query-based, whether it modifies state, or any rate limits.
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?
The description is extremely short (1 sentence), which is concise but lacks essential detail. It could be expanded with a few more sentences without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity of the input schema (array of objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is completely insufficient to guide an agent's selection and invocation.
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%, and the description does not explain the 'queries' parameter, leaving the agent without needed context for constructing valid input (e.g., structure of query objects, allowed fields).
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 'Get Vapi analytics' is a near-tautology of the tool name, providing only a generic verb and resource without specifying what subset of analytics is returned or how it differs from sibling tools like vapi_get_campaign_analytics.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vapi_get_campaign_analytics, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.