kinsta_analytics_bandwidthRetrieve bandwidth usage analytics for a Kinsta environment. Specify environment ID and optional date range or time span to return traffic data.
Get bandwidth analytics for an environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Custom end date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Custom start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| time_span | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description 'Get bandwidth analytics' is consistent with those annotations and adds no behavioral context beyond them, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage. No contradiction.
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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the essential action. Nothing is wasted.
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?
It is a simple read-only query tool with no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it could usefully mention the time_span options or the from/to date-range behavior, and it fails to disambiguate from the sibling bandwidth-usage tool. Adequate but minimal.
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 coverage is 75% (env_id, to, from documented; time_span lacks a description). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema, and does not explain the time_span enum options or the relationship between from/to and time_span. With coverage in the mid-range, baseline 3 is fair.
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 verb ('Get') plus resource ('bandwidth analytics') plus scope ('for an environment'). Clear and unambiguous on its own, but it does not differentiate from very similar siblings like kinsta_analytics_bandwidth-usage, kinsta_analytics_cdn-bandwidth, or kinsta_analytics_cdn-bandwidth-usage, so an agent cannot tell which bandwidth metric it is getting.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many analytics siblings. Given kinsta_analytics_bandwidth-usage exists (nearly identical name), there is zero disambiguation about which returns raw bandwidth vs. usage, or how CDN bandwidth differs. An agent must guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.