Skip to main content
Glama
wiz-abhi

signoz-funnel-mcp

by wiz-abhi

get_funnel_analytics

Measure funnel step conversion rates with trace counts and end-to-end metrics. Identify funnels by ID or name to track user progression.

Instructions

Measure a funnel: per-step conversion with trace counts, plus end-to-end metrics.

Identify the funnel by either funnel_id or funnel_name.

Every step row carries an explicit n (number of traces reaching that step) alongside its conversion percentages, so any chart built from this can label each bar with its sample size.

Args: funnel_id: The funnel's UUID. funnel_name: Its name (resolved to an id for you). Ignored if funnel_id is given. time_range: Relative window like "30m", "24h", "7d", "2w". Converted to the nanosecond bounds the API needs.

Returns: steps (one row per step: n, errors, conversion_from_previous_pct, conversion_from_start_pct, dropped_from_previous), end_to_end metrics, and totals.

Note: When zero traces complete a step, SigNoz returns HTTP 500 unsupported value: NaN instead of a 0% result (SigNoz issue #12143). This tool detects that and reports a clean zero, flagged via end_to_end.zero_trace_fallback.

If a step shows 0 traces, read ``diagnostics``. Besides a wrong span
name, the usual culprit is that SigNoz enforces step ordering
**strictly** (``t_next > t_prev``): spans that complete within the same
clock tick -- instantaneous no-ops -- are not counted as ordered and
will silently under-count even when the sequence is correct.

``end_to_end.errors`` is a MAX across steps, not a sum, and its
``latency`` is hardcoded to p99 by SigNoz -- both are restated in
``end_to_end.caveats``.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
funnel_idNo
time_rangeNo24h
funnel_nameNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the SigNoz HTTP 500 NaN bug and zero_trace_fallback, the strict step ordering causing under-counts, the semantics of errors as a MAX, and latency hardcoded to p99. These are behavioral insights far beyond a basic operation description.

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 structured with Args, Returns, and Notes sections, keeping details organized and front-loaded. Every sentence provides useful information, including edge-case caveats, without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having an output schema (per context signals), the description still explains the return structure, parameter semantics, and critical gotchas. For a tool with this complexity—two identifying parameters, time-range conversion, and known SigNoz quirks—the description is fully complete and self-sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so completely: funnel_id (UUID), funnel_name (resolved to id, ignored if id given), and time_range (with examples and note about nanosecond conversion). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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?

The description opens with "Measure a funnel: per-step conversion with trace counts, plus end-to-end metrics," a specific verb+resource that clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_funnels, create_funnel, and get_funnel_slow_traces. The name and description together make the tool's function unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Measure a funnel...') and explains identification via funnel_id or funnel_name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficiently clear, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wiz-abhi/funnel-of-thought'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server