Gizmo Analytics

list_goals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists every goal defined for a site along with conversion count and rate over a specified date range. Helps answer questions about goal performance and identify trends.

Instructions

ANSWER FIRST for 'what's my conversion rate?', 'how many signups this week?', 'show me my goals', 'are my conversions up or down?'. Lists every goal defined for a site with conversion count + rate over the date range. Pair with create_goal first if the user hasn't defined any goals yet.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_goals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_id`	Yes	Internal site UUID for the target site. Get one from list_sites.
`date_range`	No	Time window. One of: today, yesterday, last_7_days, last_14_days, last_30_days, last_90_days. Defaults to last_7_days.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goals`	Yes	Goals with their conversion counts and rates over the range.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, etc. Description adds that it includes conversion count and rate over a date range, which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Efficient two-sentence structure with a front-loaded list of example queries. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple list functionality and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and pairing advice. No significant gaps.

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 100% and description repeats parameters (site_id, date_range) without adding semantic details beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Starts with common user queries and states clearly: 'Lists every goal defined for a site with conversion count + rate over the date range.' Distinguishes from sibling 'create_goal'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly lists sample queries that trigger this tool and advises pairing with create_goal if no goals exist. Lacks explicit when-not, but context is clear.

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