kinsta_analytics_top-hostsIdentify top hosts for a Kinsta environment to analyze traffic patterns and performance, using custom date ranges or predefined time spans.
Get top hosts.
| 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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety and mutation profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., return format, pagination, date handling, or what 'hosts' refers to). It essentially restates the tool name, providing no value beyond what annotations already convey.
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 extremely terse ('Get top hosts'), which is concise but under-specified. It is not front-loaded with useful information because there is almost none. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, this is insufficiently informative, crossing from conciseness into incompleteness.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return structure or typical result (e.g., list of hosts with metrics). It does not. The description also fails to explain what 'top hosts' means or how it relates to other analytics tools. The agent is left with no idea of the output shape or any caveats, making the definition incomplete for a simple but non-trivial analytics query.
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%, with to, from, and env_id documented. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameter semantics. Since the schema covers most parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for the undocumented time_span param but is not required to given high coverage.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get top hosts'), but it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling 'top-' analytics tools (e.g., top-countries, top-cities, top-referrers). The name carries the differentiation, not the description. It is not a tautology, but it is minimal.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kinsta_analytics_top-countries or kinsta_analytics_top-asns. No context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria is provided. The description gives the agent no help in deciding between the many top-X analytics siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.