kinsta_analytics_visits-dispersionRetrieve visit dispersion metrics for a Kinsta environment. Use custom dates or preset time spans to analyze visitor distribution across periods.
Get visit dispersion.
| 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 description does not need to repeat safety traits. However, it adds no further behavioral context—no mention of return format, aggregation level, or any constraints. The description is a bare operation statement with no value beyond the annotations.
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 short sentence with no filler, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it approaches under-specification rather than effective brevity, though for what it contains it is well-structured.
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?
With no output schema and a description that is only 'Get visit dispersion.', an agent lacks essential context: what dispersion means, what data is returned, how to interpret parameters, or how this differs from the numerous analytics siblings. For a tool with 4 parameters and many peers, this is significantly incomplete.
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% (env_id, from, to have descriptions; time_span has an enum but no text). The description does not add any parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'visit dispersion', which clearly indicates the subject. However, it does not explain what 'dispersion' represents or how it differs from other analytics metrics like visits or bandwidth, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among many 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other analytics tools (visits, bandwidth, top-countries, etc.). An agent cannot infer the appropriate context or alternatives from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.