kinsta_analytics_visits-usageRetrieve the current month's billable visit usage for a specific site by providing its site ID. Monitor resource consumption to manage hosting costs.
Get this month's billable visit usage for a site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | Yes | The site ID |
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 adds the scoping context of 'this month' and 'billable,' which is helpful but not behavioral detail. No side effects, return format, or auth requirements are disclosed, though the annotations lessen the burden.
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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object, then immediately adds the specific time and billing qualifiers. This is an appropriately sized description for such a simple tool.
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 simple input schema (one param), the presence of safety annotations, and the lack of an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It specifies the metric (billable visit usage), the time window (this month), and the target (a site). No critical operational detail is missing.
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 100% and the sole parameter site_id is described as 'The site ID' in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond confirming the site scope經濟. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('visit usage'), then narrows it with 'this month's billable' and 'for a site.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from the many other analytics tools in the sibling list, such as kinsta_analytics_visits or kinsta_analytics_visits-dispersion, without needing to open the schema.
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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over the numerous analytics siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The 'billable' and 'this month' qualifiers implicitly hint at its niche, but the agent is left to infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.