rybbit-mcp

Site Has Data

rybbit_site_has_data

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify whether a Rybbit site has received any tracking events before analyzing its analytics. Confirms SDK integration is working for a given site ID.

Instructions

Check whether a site has received any tracking events yet. Useful for verifying SDK integration before drilling into analytics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteId`	Yes	Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hasData`	Yes	Whether the site has received any tracking events

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": {
+    "hasData": {
+      "description": "Whether the site has received any tracking events",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "hasData"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.4.3Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the semantic scope of the check ('tracking events yet') and a use case; it does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or limits beyond what annotations provide. A 3 reflects modest added value.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage note. No redundant or filler content; appropriately sized.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple single-parameter, read-only check with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with one required siteId parameter, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, baseline 3.

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 ('Check') and resource ('whether a site has received any tracking events'), and the 'before drilling into analytics' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the many analytics-query siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a clear when-to-use context ('verifying SDK integration before drilling into analytics'), but gives no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions, matching a 4.

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

Deploy Server