Flowsery

Get Traffic by Hostname

get_hostnames

Read-only

Get traffic breakdown by hostname/domain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endAt`	No	ISO 8601 end date (e.g. "2026-01-31")
`limit`	No	Max results (1-1000, default: 100)
`domain`	No	Website domain to query. Required when using a workspace token unless websiteId is provided.
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (default: 0)
`startAt`	No	ISO 8601 start date (e.g. "2026-01-01")
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone (e.g. "America/New_York"). Falls back to site default.
`filter_os`	No	Filter by operating system
`websiteId`	No	Website ID to query. Required when using a workspace token unless domain is provided.
`filter_ref`	No	Filter by ref URL parameter
`filter_via`	No	Filter by via URL parameter
`filter_city`	No	Filter by city
`filter_goal`	No	Filter by goal name
`filter_page`	No	Filter by page path
`filter_device`	No	Filter by device type: desktop, mobile, tablet
`filter_region`	No	Filter by region
`filter_source`	No	Filter by source URL parameter
`filter_browser`	No	Filter by browser name
`filter_channel`	No	Filter by marketing channel
`filter_country`	No	Filter by country
`filter_hostname`	No	Filter by hostname
`filter_referrer`	No	Filter by referrer domain
`filter_utm_term`	No	Filter by UTM term
`filter_entry_page`	No	Filter by entry/landing page
`filter_utm_medium`	No	Filter by UTM medium
`filter_utm_source`	No	Filter by UTM source
`filter_utm_content`	No	Filter by UTM content
`filter_utm_campaign`	No	Filter by UTM campaign

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	Hostnames with visitor counts.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. But the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations — nothing about date-range requirements, pagination via offset/limit, or that all parameters are optional filters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence has no wasted words, but it essentially restates the title ('Get Traffic by Hostname' → 'Get traffic breakdown by hostname/domain') and offers no structured or front-loaded information to help an agent decide or invoke. Concise but under-informative.

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?

For a tool with 27 parameters, zero required fields, and a large sibling family, one sentence is insufficient context. The output schema covers return values, but the descripption fails to explain the domain-vs-websiteId disjunction, the extensive filter capabilities, or how this differs from the generic get_breakdown tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'hostname/domain' phrasing loosely maps to the domain and filter_hostname parameters but adds no semantic detail that the schema does not already document for every one of the 27 parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: retrieving traffic data grouped by hostname/domain, matching the tool's name and title. However, it provides no sibling differentiatiion — an agent cannot tell from the description whether to pick this over get_breakdown, get_referrers, or get_pages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that hostname breakdowns suit multi-domain sites, nor does it direct agents to get_breakdown for custom dimensions or get_overview for aggregate metrics. The only contextual cues (domain-vs-websiteId requirement) live in the schema, not the description.

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

All Flowsery 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: get_* tools cover different analytics dimensions (browsers, cities, countries, etc.) with clear scopes, while issue management and tracking tools are clearly separated. Even get_breakdown is explicitly scoped to dimensions without dedicated endpoints, avoiding overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (delete_goals, get_overview, track_goal, update_issue_status). Verbs are specific and predictable (get, delete, track, list, update), and there are no naming style mixes.

Tool Count2/5

At 27 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold considered 'too many.' While the domain is broad (analytics, tracking, issues), many get_* tools could be consolidated into get_breakdown with filter parameters, making the count feel inflated rather than necessarily well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full analytics lifecycle: overview, time series, breakdowns, real-time data, visitor profiles, goal/payment tracking and deletion, plus AI issue listing/detail/status updates. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update for goals/payments, no explicit list of defined goals), but these are non-critical and don't impair typical workflows.

Resources

Need Help?