Sealmetrics MCP Server

get_traffic_data

Retrieve traffic and acquisition data from Sealmetrics analytics to analyze marketing performance, track SEO metrics, and monitor campaign results across different channels and time periods.

Instructions

Get traffic/acquisition data from Sealmetrics. Answers questions like 'How much traffic from SEO yesterday?' or 'Show me Google Ads performance this month'

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "date_range": "<date_range>"
    },
    "name": "get_traffic_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	No	Sealmetrics account ID (optional if SEALMETRICS_ACCOUNT_ID is set)
`date_range`	Yes	Date range: 'yesterday', 'today', 'last_7_days', 'last_30_days', 'this_month', 'last_month', or 'YYYYMMDD,YYYYMMDD'
`report_type`	No	Report grouping: 'Source', 'Medium', 'Campaign', 'Term'	Source
`utm_source`	No	Filter by specific source (e.g., 'google', 'facebook', 'seo')
`utm_medium`	No	Filter by medium (e.g., 'organic', 'cpc', 'email')
`utm_campaign`	No	Filter by campaign name
`country`	No	Filter by country code (e.g., 'us', 'es')
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (default: 100, max: 1000)
`skip`	No	Number of results to skip for pagination (default: 0)
`auto_paginate`	No	Automatically fetch all results across multiple pages (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Feb 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what data is retrieved (traffic/acquisition), it doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a data retrieval tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and follows with illustrative examples. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying use cases without unnecessary elaboration. The structure is efficient and zero-waste, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's intent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It adequately explains the 'what' (traffic/acquisition data) but lacks critical context such as behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, pagination behavior hinted at by parameters), output format, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with this many parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more guidance on what to expect from the tool's operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples for specific combinations). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get traffic/acquisition data from Sealmetrics.' It specifies the type of data (traffic/acquisition) and the source (Sealmetrics), and provides concrete examples of questions it can answer. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_funnel_data' or 'get_pages_performance', which likely retrieve different types of analytics data from the same platform.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage guidance through example questions ('How much traffic from SEO yesterday?' or 'Show me Google Ads performance this month'), which suggests this tool is for traffic and acquisition metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_funnel_data' or 'get_conversions', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server