get_visitors
Recent individual visits: entry page, path taken, country, device, human/bot.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| site | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
DevDome Analytics
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields and does not state whether this is a safe read-only operation, any response limits, default time windows, or pagination behavior.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the resource and relevant output dimensions, making it easy for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and only a terse description, so the agent must rely on the description for both selection and invocation. It lacks parameter semantics, sibling differentiation, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for confident tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'site', 'days', or 'limit' parameters. 'Recent' and 'individual visits' provide only weak hints about 'days' and 'limit', leaving most parameter meaning to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource as recent individual visits and lists the key returned fields (entry page, path, country, device, human/bot). The word 'individual' helps distinguish it from aggregate or bot-specific sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Recent individual visits' implies this tool is for detailed visitor-level data rather than aggregates, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_stats, get_realtime, or get_bot_report. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.