Skip to main content
Glama
yulanventures

@prompteden/mcp-server

Official
by yulanventures
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create analytics goal

analytics_create_goal

Create a destination-path goal for an analytics property, counting visits prospectively from creation. Use path-only destinations like /thanks; duplicates and unset properties return conflicts.

Instructions

Create a destination-URL goal via POST /api/v1/analytics/goals. The destination is a PATH starting with '/' (e.g. /thanks) — absolute URLs are rejected with invalid_goal; the goal always belongs to the property's own hostname. Counting is prospective from creation (within-visit attribution), no history backfill. 409 goal_exists on a duplicate destination; 409 property_not_set_up when the project has no analytics property yet. This changes live tracking on the user's site. Does not use credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesGoal display name.
projectIdNoNumeric project id (convenience shape; do not combine with propertyId).
propertyIdNoExplicit analytics property id (primary target). Pass ALONE — combining with a project reference is rejected. When omitted, pass a project reference instead; that resolves only when the project has exactly one property (409 property_scope_ambiguous otherwise).
destinationYesDestination path starting with '/', e.g. /thanks. Absolute URLs are rejected (path-only contract).
projectUuidNoProject UUID (alternative to projectId).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it warns that the destination must be a path (not absolute URL), that counting is prospective with no history backfill, that it changes live tracking on the user's site, and that it does not use credits. These are critical behavioral traits not covered by annotations.

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?

The description is a compact paragraph that is front-loaded with the core action and API endpoint. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for error cases.

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?

Given no output schema and high schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: endpoint, destination contract, counting semantics, error conditions, and live impact. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds semantic nuance about destination being a path starting with '/' and absolute URLs being rejected, and mentions the property's own hostname, which goes slightly beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a destination-URL goal') and names the API endpoint. Distinguishes itself from sibling analytics_list_goals and analytics_archive_goal by making the create action and the destination-URL concept explicit.

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 explains what a destination-URL goal is and how counting works, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. alternatives or prerequisites beyond the error codes. The error codes (409 goal_exists, 409 property_not_set_up) do imply usage constraints.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools