Rank website traffic sources by pageviews over a chosen lookback window, showing UTM source, referrer host, or direct visits. Set limit and range to identify where visits come from.
Traffic sources (UTM source, else referrer host, else direct) ranked by pageviews.
| 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 full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior in the attribution fallback chain (UTM source, else referrer host, else direct) and the ranking metric, which is real added value. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, response shape, or limits beyond what the schema states.
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 with zero filler, front-loading the resource and appending the grouping rule and ranking metric. Nothing is redundant.
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 default-parameterized, read-only analytics aggregate with no output schema and no annotations, the sentence covers what the tool returns (ranked sources) and how sources are derived. Only minor gaps remain, such as how ties or direct traffic volume behave.
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 syntax or semantics beyond that, 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?
States a specific resource (traffic sources), the ranking metric (pageviews), and the grouping rule (UTM source, else referrer host, else direct). That resource is inherently distinct from siblings like top_pages, top_countries and top_browsers, though the description never names them to make the distinction explicit.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from alternatives such as top_pages or get_overview. The one-line description leaves the agent to infer the use case entirely from the title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.