Retrieve visitor and pageview totals, period-over-period changes, and top sources, pages, and events for a chosen lookback window such as 24h, 7d, or 30d.
Visitors and pageviews for the range, change vs the previous equal-length period, plus top sources, pages and events. Start here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the content of the response, which is the most relevant behavioral trait for a read-only analytics summary, and 'Start here' signals entry-point semantics. It does not state permissions, freshness/aggregation behavior, or any limits, which is a gap but modest for a clearly read-only metrics tool.
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 compact sentences with zero filler; the metric content is front-loaded and the orienting cue ('Start here') is placed last where it lands naturally. Every phrase earns its place.
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 single-parameter, optional-arg read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (summary metrics plus top sources/pages/events). It does not explain response shape or granularity, but the enumerated contents largely cover the return-value gap. Complete enough for an agent to call correctly.
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%, and the range parameter's schema already documents accepted formats and the default. The description only alludes to 'the range' and the 'previous equal-length period', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?
The description names specific outputs (visitors, pageviews, period-over-period change, top sources/pages/events), which clearly identifies it as a summary/dashboard tool. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like get_timeseries, top_sources, or top_pages, which also surface related metrics. 'Start here' hints at orientation but isn't a hard disambiguation.
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?
'Start here' is genuine implied guidance that this is the entry point, useful for an agent orienting in a large analytics toolset. However, no alternative is named and no condition for when to use a more targeted sibling (e.g. top_sources) instead is given. Usage is implied rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.