kinsta_analytics_top-citiesIdentify your website's geographic audience by retrieving top visitor cities for a Kinsta environment. Specify an environment ID and optional date range or time span to get the data.
Get top visitor cities.
| 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?
The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name, adding only 'get' and 'visitor'. It doesn't disclose how results are ordered, what 'top' means, or any response characteristics. Since annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent, the description adds minimal behavioral context, leaving the agent to infer the output format.
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?
The description is one short sentence, which is concise, but it's arguably too terse for a tool with four parameters and many siblings. It lacks any structuring or prioritization of information, but at least it's not bloated. A slightly more detailed description could improve usefulness without sacrificing brevity.
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?
The description is incomplete for an analytics tool. It doesn't explain what 'top' means (e.g., sorted by visit count), what time range options are available, or what the response structure looks like. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should carry more burden, but it provides only a bare statement of purpose.
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?
The schema already provides descriptions for env_id, from, and to, covering 75% of parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The time_span parameter lacks a description but has an enum, which provides some semantic context.
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 'Get top visitor cities' states a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it retrieves city-level visitor analytics. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like top-countries or top-client-ips beyond the resource name, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other analytics top-* tools. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as requiring an environment ID, or any conditions under which one would choose cities over countries. This is a significant gap given the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.