Bot traffic on a site - DevDome separates every hit into human vs bot. kind 'bots' = known-bot catalog activity; 'threats' = suspicious/behavioral detections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| site | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only explains that DevDome classifies hits as human vs bot and gives meaning to the two 'kind' values. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how data is aggregated, response format, or potential edge cases, leaving significant behavior uncovered.
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?
The description is compact and readable, packing the key enum semantics into two sentences. The opening phrase is a bit label-like rather than a clear action statement, but there is no wasted wording.
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?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves out critical practical details: which parameters are optional, what 'days' defaults to, what the return payload looks like, and whether specific site setup is required. Agents are likely to have to inspect other signals or make assumptions to call this correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value by explaining the 'bots' and 'threats' enum values, but it says nothing about the 'days' parameter's units/defaults or the expected format of 'site'. The partial explanation is helpful but incomplete.
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?
The description clearly points to bot traffic reporting for a site and defines the two subtypes ('bots' and 'threats'), which helps distinguish this tool from siblings like get_visitors or get_stats. However, it never explicitly says 'returns a report' or lists the metrics provided, leaving mild ambiguity about the exact output nature.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over the listed siblings such as get_breakdown, get_timeseries, or get_realtime. No context is given for use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource or analytics view: site lifecycle (add, list, verify), aggregate stats, timeseries, top-N breakdowns, individual visitors, real-time activity, bot reports, and health. The only slight overlap is that get_stats includes bots as a KPI, but get_bot_report is clearly a dedicated classification view, so there is no real ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: add_, list_, get_, verify_. The only minor variation is list_sites using a plural noun while add_site uses singular, which is a standard and predictable convention for resource collections.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and the count matches the server's scope: site onboarding, verification, analytics reporting, and health monitoring. Each tool adds a distinct capability without redundancy or bloat.
The core workflows are covered: sites can be added, listed, and verified, with comprehensive traffic analytics including aggregates, timeseries, breakdowns, visitors, real-time activity, bot reports, and health. The main gap is the lack of site update/delete operations, but that is a minor lifecycle omission rather than a workflow-breaking issue.