Fetches an analytics report segment and returns it as TSV text, decompressing gzip content.
Download an analytics report segment and return it as TSV text (gzip is decompressed)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxChars | No | Truncate the returned text to this many characters (default: 50000) | |
| segmentUrl | Yes | The URL of the analytics report segment to download |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the return format (TSV text) and that gzip payloads are transparently decompressed, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether large segments are truncated beyond the schema's maxChars parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero filler that front-loads the action and then the output contract. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (TSV text, gzip decompressed), which is what an agent needs. The only gaps are behavioral details like auth requirements or failure modes, minor for a read-only download.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (segmentUrl, maxChars) are already fully documented in the schema, including the 50000 default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Download) and resource (analytics report segment) plus the return format (TSV text), which clearly separates it from listing siblings like list_analytics_report_segments. It never explicitly names a sibling or contrasts itself with one, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as list_analytics_report_segments or create_analytics_report_request. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.