kinsta_analytics_top-countriesIdentify top visitor countries for a Kinsta environment by providing its environment ID. Optionally set custom date ranges or time spans to focus analytics.
Get top visitor countries.
| 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the resource name; it doesn't mention date range handling, default time spans, or response format. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 simple read-only analytics tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering most parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention default time ranges, how the 'top' ranking is determined, or whether results are aggregated. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling analytics tools, a bit more context would help.
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 75%, so most parameters (env_id, from, to) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The time_span parameter has an enum but no description in the schema, and the description doesn't clarify it either, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 countries' clearly states the verb (get), resource (top visitor countries), and scope (countries). It is distinguishable from sibling analytics tools like top-cities, top-client-ips, and top-asns by the resource name, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.
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 implies usage for retrieving top visitor countries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like top-cities or top-asns. The context of analytics tools is clear, but no exclusions or alternative routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.