Rank visitor countries by pageviews for a chosen lookback window and row limit to identify where site traffic originates.
Visitor countries ranked by pageviews, with the country name ("XX" is unknown).
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral detail: the 'XX' sentinel value returned for unknown countries. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, result ordering beyond 'ranked', or how the lookback window bounds results.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the ranking metric, and the one output quirk, with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 simple read-only ranking tool with fully-described parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials plus the 'XX' caveat. It falls short only on ordering/tie-breaking behavior and explicit sibling routing, which are minor gaps here.
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 both the limit cap (50, default 10) and the range window (max 90d, default 7d) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb (ranked by pageviews) and resource (visitor countries), making the dimensional slice immediately clear. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like top_pages or top_browsers by the 'countries' dimension, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the country-dimension counterpart to top_pages/top_browsers/top_sources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.