Skip to main content
Glama
okareo-ai

Okareo MCP Server

Official
by okareo-ai

Query Analytics

query_analytics
Read-onlyIdempotent

Aggregate evaluation metrics across time and dimensions to uncover quality trends and identify issues, helping refine evaluation strategies.

Instructions

Query Okareo's product analytics to understand evaluation trends.

    Answers questions like "how is my evaluation quality trending" by
    aggregating measures across dimensions over a time window.

    Args:
        measures: Metrics to aggregate. Required. For the ``check_trend``
            cube: avg_check_value, issue_rate, error_rate, datapoint_count,
            issue_count, error_count, test_run_count, avg_latency, sum_cost,
            input_token_count, output_token_count.
        dimensions: Optional group-by fields (e.g. ["check.name"],
            ["target.name"], ["provider"]).
        cube: Optional analytics cube name (defaults to ``check_trend``,
            currently the only cube).
        filters: Optional list of filter objects
            ``{"member": ..., "operator": ..., "values": [...]}``.
        time_range: Optional look-back window — one of LAST_HOUR,
            LAST_24_HOURS, LAST_7_DAYS, LAST_14_DAYS, LAST_30_DAYS,
            LAST_90_DAYS. If neither time_range nor time_dimensions is
            given, defaults to LAST_30_DAYS (the analytics API requires a
            time window).
        time_dimensions: Optional time bucketing — a list with at most one
            entry, e.g. [{"dimension": "test_run.start_time",
            "granularity": "day"}] (granularity: hour, day, or week).
        include_metadata: When true, also return the available cubes,
            dimensions, and measures so the query can be refined.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cubeNo
filtersNo
measuresYes
dimensionsNo
time_rangeNo
time_dimensionsNo
include_metadataNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: the API requires a time window and defaults to LAST_30_DAYS, and include_metadata returns available cubes/dimensions/measures. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is lengthy but every sentence adds value, especially given the 7 parameters. The structured Args list improves scannability. Slight verbosity in the intro sentence could be trimmed, but it's well-organized.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: defaults, constraints, allowed values, and metadata option. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. No gaps identified.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section fully documents each parameter: valid measure names, dimension examples, cube options, filter object format, time_range enum, time_dimensions structure with granularity, and include_metadata behavior. This is exceptional compensation for the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query Okareo's product analytics to understand evaluation trends.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_check or list_test_runs by focusing on aggregation and trend analysis. The example question reinforces the purpose.

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?

It gives a concrete use case ('how is my evaluation quality trending') and notes the time-window requirement. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes when to use this tool clear. Sibling names are mostly CRUD operations, so the differentiation is implicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/okareo-ai/okareo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server