Skip to main content
Glama
@mitr-analytics/mcp

@mitr-analytics/mcp

by shiv9thakur

Create a conversion funnel

create_funnel

Build a conversion funnel from 2–10 ordered page paths or custom events, scoped by app or UTM campaign, to measure drop-off and conversion; returns the new funnel.

Instructions

Create a funnel of 2 or more ordered steps (each a page path or a custom event) to measure conversion through. Returns the new funnel. Needs an API key with the funnels:write permission.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName for the funnel, e.g. 'Signup'.
stepsYes
utmCampaignNoScope the funnel to one campaign link's utm_campaign key.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns the new funnel and requires a funnels:write API key. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the return value and permission requirement.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential output ('returns the new funnel'), auth requirement, and step constraints. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify the response shape or resolve the 2+ step statement against the schema's minItems=1.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% and already documents fields such as matchType and matchValue. The description adds that steps are ordered and each is a page path or custom event, but it leaves name, siteId, and utmCampaign to the schema. It also says '2 or more' steps while the schema allows minItems=1, creating a notable semantic discrepancy.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a funnel. It also explains the core input shape (2+ ordered steps, each a page path or custom event) and the purpose (measuring conversion). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as update_funnel or list_funnels.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to create a new funnel with at least two ordered steps. It gives a prerequisite (API key with funnels:write) but does not say when not to use it or explicitly route agents to update_funnel for modifications or list_funnels for viewing.

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