Measure current traffic, custom events, and revenue against an equal-length previous period to show descriptive changes; a null percent change means a zero baseline.
Compare an equal-length previous period: traffic, custom events and revenue. Changes are descriptive. Null percent change means the previous baseline was zero.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
| 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 this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that observed changes are descriptive (not causal attributions) and that a null percent change means a zero baseline — an edge case an agent would otherwise misinterpret.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the core comparison scope front-loaded and the edge-case caveat following. Every sentence carries information.
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 explained, and the analysis intent is stated. However, the lone input parameter is undocumented, the phrase 'changes are descriptive' is cryptic without further explanation, and there is no routing guidance among the many sibling report tools.
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?
The single parameter 'days' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. 'Equal-length previous period' hints that a window exists, but the unit, default of 30 and the current-vs-previous relationship are left entirely for the agent to guess, which is a real gap for a one-parameter tool.
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 names a specific verb (compare) and the concrete resources it compares — traffic, custom events and revenue — against an equal-length previous period. That is enough for an agent to know what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like investigate_change, detect_anomalies or breakdown.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite several siblings (breakdown, investigate_change, detect_anomalies) that could plausibly serve similar 'compare a period' needs. The agent must infer placement purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.