Retrieve revenue chart data for an Umami website over a specified date range and currency, with optional time unit, comparison, timezone, and filters to analyze revenue trends.
Get revenue chart data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | ||
| endAt | Yes | ||
| compare | No | ||
| filters | No | Additional current Umami filter fields such as path, event, country, or segment | |
| startAt | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| websiteId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Get" implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose return shape, whether chart buckets depend on the unit/compare parameters, permission requirements, or any rate/size constraints. It is too thin for an 8-parameter analytics endpoint.
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 wasted words, but that is because it conveys essentially nothing beyond the tool name. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 8 parameters, 4 required, nested filters, two enums, no output schema, and no annotations, this definition is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to construct a correct call or understand what the chart response represents.
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 only 13%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Critical parameters like startAt, endAt, currency, unit, compare, timezone, and the nested filters object are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to infer their formats and semantics.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get revenue chart data"), making the general intent clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like get_revenue_stats, get_revenue_metrics, get_revenue_sessions, or get_website_charts, so an agent cannot tell when a chart is the right resource versus metrics or stats.
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 instead of the several sibling revenue tools or chart tools. The description provides no prerequisites, no indication of what a "chart" includes, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.