Bisque Presentations

Get presentation analytics

get_presentation_analytics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Watch analytics for one of your presentations: views, likes, completion rate, per-slide retention funnel, traffic sources, distinct signed-in/anonymous viewers, and organization email domains (personal providers filtered). Lets an agent read how its own published briefings performed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`presentationId`	Yes	The presentationId whose view counts and survey responses you want.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`webUrl`	No
`sources`	Yes	Traffic source → view count.
`likeCount`	Yes
`viewCount`	Yes
`orgDomains`	Yes	Organization email domains of signed-in viewers (personal providers filtered), sorted desc.
`slideReach`	Yes	Retention funnel ordered by slide index.
`anonViewers`	Yes
`uniqueViewers`	Yes	Distinct signed-in viewers.
`completedCount`	Yes
`completionRate`	Yes	completedCount / viewCount, 0..1; null when no views.
`presentationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 2, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / presentationId / description
```
Added value: +"The presentationId whose view counts and survey responses you want."
```
First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by listing the metric categories, noting that personal email providers are filtered in the organization domains metric, and restricting scope to the agent's own published briefings.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first sentence front-loads the resource and a comprehensive metric list, while the second clarifies ownership scope. Every phrase contributes either purpose or behavioral context.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it specifies what the operation does, what data is returned, and what scope it applies to. There is no additional information an agent needs to decide whether to call it or to know what to expect.

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?

The single parameter presentationId is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the expected value and what it refers to. The description doesn't add syntax or constraints beyond that, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'watch' (i.e., read/retrieve), paired with the resource 'analytics for one of your presentations,' and enumerates the exact metrics provided. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_presentation_status or get_presentation_spec, which address different aspects of a presentation.

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 phrase 'for one of your presentations' and 'how its own published briefings performed' make the target scenario explicit: an agent that needs performance analytics for a presentation it published. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly exclude them, but it gives enough context to infer when this tool applies.

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

All Bisque Presentations tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear resource families (artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, channels) and descriptions explicitly redirect between create_artifact and create_presentation. The main potential confusion is create_presentation vs publish_narrated_presentation, since both produce presentations but differ in narration source; the descriptions do clarify this.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case verb_noun naming with consistent families like get_artifact, get_artifact_thread, and get_presentation_spec. publish_narrated_presentation is longer but still follows the verb_noun pattern, and there are no mixed casing styles or erratic naming conventions.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by four clear subdomains: artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, and channels. No tools are redundant, though the set is large enough to feel slightly heavy.

Completeness4/5

Artifacts have full CRUD plus sharing, and threads have create/read/list/reply/resolve. Presentations cover authoring spec, creation/publishing, status, analytics, and reading context, but there is no delete or explicit update endpoint for presentations and no exposed way to fetch mentionables; these are workable gaps rather than fatal ones.

Resources

Need Help?