Clamp Analytics MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's scope (high-level overview with specific metrics and comparison) but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens when filters return no data. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured sentences: first states purpose and metrics, second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details. It's adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full operational transparency given the complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'high-level overview of website analytics', listing specific metrics (pageviews, unique visitors, etc.) and including comparison with previous period. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing this is for 'overall traffic before drilling into specifics', unlike more granular tools like get_top_pages or get_timeseries.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this first to understand overall traffic before drilling into specifics', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It positions this tool as an entry point before using more detailed sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.