page_statsTrack views, WhatsApp order clicks, and button clicks per product on published pages to identify what is selling and decide what to promote next.
Views, WhatsApp order clicks and button clicks for published pages, broken down per product (e.g. "Runner One: 48 WhatsApp clicks"). Use it to tell the user what is selling and what to push next.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look-back window, default 30 (free plan keeps 7) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context — results are restricted to published pages, are broken down per product, and the inline example shows the shape of the returned data. It does not mention the look-back window behavior, plan-based retention, or pagination limits, so it stops short of rich disclosure.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the concrete output content before the recommendation for use. The inline example ('Runner One: 48 WhatsApp clicks') earns its place by conveying output shape compactly.
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?
For a read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what is measured, the scope of pages, the per-product breakdown and an output example. Only minor gaps remain, such as the time-window default and plan retention, which the schema already covers.
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 the single `days` parameter already documents its default of 30 and the 7-day free-plan cap, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the time window, which is acceptable at this coverage level but limits the score to baseline.
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?
Names the specific metrics (views, WhatsApp order clicks, button clicks), the scope (published pages) and the granularity (per product), which is far more informative than the title 'Page results'. It does not name or differentiate against any sibling tool, though none of the listed siblings is a competing analytics tool, so the practical risk of confusion is low.
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?
The second sentence gives a concrete use case — tell the user what is selling and what to push next — which sets clear context for when an agent should reach for this tool. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, but there is no obvious competing tool to redirect to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.