rybbit-mcp

Create Funnel

rybbit_create_funnel

Create or overwrite a named Rybbit Analytics funnel by defining ordered page or event steps for a site; pass a report ID to replace an existing funnel.

Instructions

Save a new named funnel definition. Steps are evaluated in order. Pass an existing funnel report ID to overwrite that funnel instead of creating a new one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Funnel display name
`steps`	Yes	Funnel steps in order (minimum 2)
`siteId`	Yes	Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier)
`reportId`	No	Optional existing funnel report ID to overwrite (instead of creating a new one)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`steps`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1Sep 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "number"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "steps": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "page",
+              "event"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.4.3Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations already declaring a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, the description adds real behavioral context: steps are evaluated in order and supplying reportId silently overwrites an existing funnel rather than creating one. That overwrite disclosure is important behaviour an agent would not infer from the annotations alone. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about validation failures or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two behavioural caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the essential create-vs-overwrite and step-ordering context, leaving only minor gaps such as error behaviour.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, steps, siteId and reportId. The description re-states the reportId overwrite and step ordering, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a new named funnel definition') and adds the evaluate-in-order and overwrite semantics, so an agent can distinguish it from rybbit_analyze_funnel or rybbit_create_goal. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, which keeps it just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies two modes of use by describing the reportId branch ('overwrite that funnel instead of creating a new one'), giving useful conditional guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/ when-not statement and no reference to sibling tools such as analyze_funnel or update paths.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server