Retrieve A/B test activity performance reports with conversion metrics and visitor counts. Evaluate test effectiveness to make data-driven optimization decisions.
Get performance report for an A/B Test activity with metrics, conversions, and visitor data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Activity ID | |
| reportInterval | No | Optional date range in ISO 8601 format (e.g., "2024-01-01T00:00-07:00/2024-02-01T00:00-07:00") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the mention of metrics, conversions, and visitor data gives some sense of the response content. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination, report generation behavior, or other operational details.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds useful high-level content expectations. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or filler.
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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters, and schema coverage is complete, but there is no output schema and no annotation context. The description gives a high-level idea of the report contents but does not fully specify the return structure or how reportInterval influences the response, leaving moderate gaps.
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 100%, so id and reportInterval are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('performance report for an A/B Test activity'), and explicitly lists content areas (metrics, conversions, visitor data). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling report tools like getXTPerformanceReport and getABOrdersReport.
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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives such as getABOrdersReport, getActivityInsights, or the XT/APT report tools. The description implies use for A/B performance reporting, but it does not state exclusions or specific selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.