@lodd/mcp-server

get_active_actors

List customer-hashed actor identifiers with event counts, first and last seen times, and total revenue to analyze user engagement and revenue per anonymous actor.

Instructions

List distinct actors (opaque hashed identifiers) with their event counts, first/last seen, and total revenue. Actors are customer-hashed — Lodd never sees the original identifier. Only includes events where an actor was set.

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": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "get_active_actors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site domain or UUID
`limit`	No	Max results (1-1000)
`period`	No	Time period	30d

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.15Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description reveals that actors are hashed (opaque) and that Lodd never sees the original identifier, and that only events with an actor are included. However, it does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or any side effects. Given no annotations, more detail would be helpful for a read tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and then adds clarifying details. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool is a simple list with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the subject. It explains the nature of actors and the filter. It lacks mention of pagination or ordering, but overall is sufficient.

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 parameters described. The description adds global context about hashing but no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'list', resource 'distinct actors', and includes the returned fields (event counts, first/last seen, total revenue). It distinguishes itself by noting the hashed nature of actors, which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_actor_activity or get_actor_retention.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_actor_activity and get_actor_retention exist but are not mentioned. There is no when-not-to-use or context for selection.

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