Retrieve team call analytics for a selected date or 7/30/90-day period, optionally filtered by team member and timezone.
Team call analytics.
Requires scope analytics:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz | No | Timezone offset in minutes (as JS getTimezoneOffset) | |
| date | No | Single local day (YYYY-MM-DD); returns 15-minute buckets | |
| period | No | ||
| user_id | No | Only this team member |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required OAuth scope, which is real context not in annotations, but says nothing about what the overview aggregates, default time window, or result shape.
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 very short sentences with nothing extraneous, and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
Four optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what metrics or dimensions the overview returns or how date (15-minute buckets) relates to period (7d/30d/90d). An agent cannot predict the response or pick the correct time parameter from this description.
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 75%, with tz, date, and user_id documented in the schema and period only an enum. The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description is a noun phrase, 'Team call analytics,' with no verb and no statement of what the tool actually returns (an aggregated overview of team call metrics). It nearly repeats the annotation title 'Team call analytics,' and does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling get_analytics_by_member.
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 only guidance is an auth prerequisite ('Requires scope analytics:read'), which is useful but not usage guidance. There is no indication of when to call this versus get_analytics_by_member or how date and period interact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.