Query self-hosted product analytics to find top values for a chosen dimension, such as path, referrer, campaign, device, browser, country, or event, over a set period.
Top values for a dimension: path, referrer, utm_source, utm_medium, utm_campaign, device, browser, os, country, event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| dimension | No | path |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the dimension list: no ordering (presumably top-N by count), no pagination, no statement about what the default 30-day window does.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the dimension enumeration inline and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse it reads as a fragment rather than a complete task statement.
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?
The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a 3-parameter analytics tool with zero schema coverage and many sibling tools, the definition omits time-window and limit semantics and any routing guidance.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully enumerates valid dimension values (which the schema lacks as an enum), but says nothing about days (time window) or limit (top-N count), leaving two of three parameters undocumented.
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 a clear resource and action: returns top values for a dimension, and enumerates the valid dimensions. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_dimension_values, leaving real ambiguity about which to pick.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no named alternatives. With siblings like list_dimension_values, query_metrics, and compare, the agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.