Lists sessions that include revenue data for a website, using date range, currency, filters, and optional comparison to analyze paid traffic performance.
List sessions with revenue data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| unit | No | ||
| endAt | Yes | ||
| search | No | ||
| compare | No | ||
| filters | No | Additional current Umami filter fields such as path, event, country, or segment | |
| startAt | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| 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. "List" implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, sorting, limits, permission requirements, or anything about the response shape.
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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its terseness leaves it structurally inadequate for an 11-parameter data-listing 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 11 parameters, nested filters, low schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine required inputs, pagination behavior, or how this differs from related revenue and session tools.
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 9%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the phrase "revenue data." It does not explain required parameters such as websiteId, startAt, endAt, currency, or the roles of page, pageSize, unit, compare, timezone, search, and filters.
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 specific verb and resource: "List sessions" qualified by "with revenue data." This is clear enough to distinguish it from generic session tools, but it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like get_sessions or get_revenue_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 about when to use this tool versus get_sessions, get_revenue_stats, get_revenue_chart, or get_revenue_metrics. The revenue qualifier implies context but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.