Lists domains reached through the proxy with bytes and request counts, ranked by traffic, for today or a custom date range.
Domains reached through the proxy, largest traffic first, with bytes and request counts.
Pass period, or start and end as dd-mm-yyyy (not ISO). Defaults to today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| period | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default time window and the non-ISO date format constraint, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or how limit interacts with the ranking.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second covers the time-window inputs and default. No filler, though the trailing blank line and the 'Pass period, or...' phrasing is slightly terse rather than polished.
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 values need not be described, and the time-window inputs are covered. Still missing for a 4-parameter tool: the meaning of limit, the enum semantics of period, and precedence when both period and start/end are supplied.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden and it does explain period, start and end, including the dd-mm-yyyy format warning. But it ignores the limit parameter entirely and never enumerates the period values (today, hours24) that the schema only exposes as a bare enum.
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 the resource clearly ('Domains reached through the proxy') and the ordering/aggregation ('largest traffic first, with bytes and request counts'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like traffic_stats or proxy_url, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
It explains how to supply a time window (period, or start/end as dd-mm-yyyy) and notes the default is today, which is useful call-site guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over traffic_stats or proxy_url, and it doesn't say whether period and start/end are mutually exclusive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.