Retrieve email analytics grouped by recipient domain, filtered by date range or period, to compare domain-level performance and identify active recipient domains.
Get stats broken down by recipient domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| limit | No | Number of top domains (default 10, max 50) | |
| period | No | Period shorthand: 7d, 30d or 90d |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare operation. It doesn't say the call is read-only, whether from/to and period are mutually exclusive or which wins, how results are ordered/paginated, or what an empty result looks like. Only the 'get' verb hints at a read operation.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than economical – the brevity costs the agent information it needs (metrics, interaction of date params, output shape).
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 annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters whose precedence is unstated, the description should explain return values and the from/to vs. period behavior. It does none of this, leaving the agent to discover the result shape by trial.
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 100%, including defaults and max for limit and the period shorthand values, so the schema handles parameter documentation. The description adds no meaning beyond it – it doesn't explain how 'to'/'from' interact with 'period' (all params optional with no stated defaults for dates).
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 verb+resource is present ('Get stats... by recipient domain'), and the 'recipient domain' dimension does differentiate it from get_analytics_overview and get_analytics_timeseries. However, 'stats' is vague – it never says which metrics (sends, opens, bounces, deliveries) are returned, so the agent still has to guess at the payload.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over get_analytics_overview, get_analytics_timeseries, or export_analytics_csv. The description only implies usage by its dimension name; no exclusions, prerequisites, or date/period defaults are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.