Retrieve account-level analytics to review link and QR code click performance across your account.
Account-level analytics overview.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_analytics"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'account-level' and nothing about what data is aggregated, freshness, or cost of the call, so it contributes little beyond structured fields.
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?
It is a single four-word fragment with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise — there is no front-loaded verb telling the agent what action is performed.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no nesting) and annotations carry the safety profile, so not much is required. Still, with no output schema the description should hint at what 'analytics overview' returns, and it does not.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax for the description to document or omit.
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?
Names the resource (analytics) and its scope (account-level), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_link_stats (link-level). However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never states what the tool actually does with the analytics (fetch? summarize? export?).
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling get_link_stats as the link-scoped alternative. The agent must infer the account-vs-link split entirely from the title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.