Detect hourly pageview jumps above prior-week baselines to reveal traffic spikes and their likely causes, with the biggest anomalies first.
Detected traffic jumps (hourly pageviews far above the same hour in prior weeks), biggest first, each with its likely causes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows. Default 10. | |
| range | No | Lookback window such as "24h", "7d" or "30d" (max 90d). Default "7d". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the detection heuristic, the ordering, and that each result carries likely causes. It says nothing about read-only semantics, rate limits, pagination beyond 'limit', or what happens when no spike exists in the window.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the definition of a spike, then ordering, then payload. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and it packs three useful facts without becoming a run-on.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back - and it does, telling the agent results are ranked and annotated with likely causes. Combined with 100% schema coverage on both params, that is nearly enough; only edge-case behavior (empty results, window limits) is unaddressed.
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% - both 'limit' (max 50, default 10) and 'range' (max 90d, default 7d) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter detail, not even tying the hourly detection granularity to the 'range' window. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (detect traffic spikes) and even operationalizes it: 'hourly pageviews far above the same hour in prior weeks'. The sorting ('biggest first') and payload ('likely causes') are spelled out. It stops short of naming the sibling explain_spike, so an agent must infer how the two divide labor.
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 implied rather than stated: this is the discovery tool and explain_spike is presumably the drill-down, but the description never says when to use one over the other, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can guess the workflow but is not told it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.