Clamp Analytics MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (implied by 'Get') and output structure (returns ranked data with specific fields), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently conveys essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output fields, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or data freshness. Without an output schema, it could benefit from more on return format, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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 fully documents both parameters (period and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how ranking is calculated or what 'most visited' means. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 specific action ('Get the most visited pages ranked by pageviews') and resource ('pages'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_top_referrers' or 'get_events' by focusing on page traffic ranking. It explicitly mentions the return data (pathname, pageview count, unique visitor count), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use to identify which pages attract the most traffic.' This directly tells the agent the tool's intended context (traffic analysis) and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'get_overview' (general stats) or 'get_funnel' (conversion paths).

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