Clamp Analytics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (columns with examples) and the ranking logic ('ranked by unique visitors'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the return format, and the third provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about what data is returned and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or data freshness information to be fully complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'ranked') and resources ('top traffic sources', 'referrer hostnames'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on referrer analysis rather than events, pages, or funnels. It specifies the exact data returned including columns and channel enumeration.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use to understand where traffic comes from'), which implicitly differentiates it from siblings like get_top_pages (which focuses on pages) or get_events (which focuses on events). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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