rybbit_list_funnelsList all saved funnels for a site with their step definitions by providing a site ID, enabling you to inspect funnel steps and conversion paths.
List all saved funnels for a site with their step definitions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | Yes | Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Saved funnels |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Saved funnels",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "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"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description's only added behavioral note is that step definitions come back with each funnel, which is modest extra context; nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty-state behavior.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required, and with a single fully documented parameter this definition is nearly sufficient. The only gap is not routing the agent away from the similarly named analyze_funnel sibling.
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 coverage is 100% and siteId is fully documented in the schema as a numeric ID or domain identifier, so the baseline applies. The description adds no format, default, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (saved funnels) plus scope (for a site) and return content (step definitions). It is readable against most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from rybbit_analyze_funnel or rybbit_create_funnel, which an agent may conflate.
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?
"List all saved funnels" implies a discovery/configuration-reading context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as analyze_funnel for metrics or create_funnel for adding one. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.