Retrieve revenue summary and compare performance across periods for a website using specified currency, date range, and optional filters.
Get revenue summary and comparison
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only implies a read operation through 'Get' and says nothing about comparison behavior, required permissions, defaults, or response format. With no output schema either, this is a significant gap for an 8-parameter analysis tool.
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 six-word sentence. While it contains no filler, it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and nested object support, and lacks the structure needed to guide correct invocation.
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 complexity (8 parameters, 4 required, nested filters, enums, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far too sparse to be complete. It leaves the agent without the information needed to call the tool correctly or interpret its output.
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% (only the nested filters object is described), and the description adds no information about any of the 8 parameters. For required fields like websiteId, startAt, endAt, currency, and optional enums like unit and compare, the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('revenue') with a summary/comparison focus, making the general purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_revenue_metrics, get_revenue_chart, or get_revenue_sessions, so an agent cannot confidently choose among them from the description alone.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_revenue_chart or get_revenue_metrics. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.