plausible-mcp-server

get_utm_stats

Analyze UTM campaign performance by retrieving breakdowns of source, medium, and campaign metrics for a specified site and date range.

Instructions

Get UTM campaign, source, and medium breakdowns — see which campaigns drive traffic.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "date_range": "<date_range>"
    },
    "name": "get_utm_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site_id`	Yes	The site ID (domain)
`dimension`	No	Which UTM dimension (default: utm_campaign)
`date_range`	Yes	Date range: '7d', '30d', 'month', 'year'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns breakdowns but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is assumed non-destructive but not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters) but remains efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (e.g., counts, percentages, date ranges) or provide examples. For a stats tool, more context on output structure is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. The description adds context by listing 'campaign, source, and medium' as example breakdowns, but does not provide additional meaning for each parameter beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 due to full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('UTM campaign, source, and medium breakdowns'). It also states the benefit ('see which campaigns drive traffic'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_stats or get_breakdown.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_breakdown or get_device_stats. It implies usage for UTM analysis but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with similar tools.

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

Deploy Server