Skip to main content
Glama

linkly

by com.linklyhq

get_analytics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get time-series click analytics data for charting. Returns click counts over time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format (default: today)
botsNoBot filtering: include (default), exclude, or only
startNoStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format (default: 30 days ago)
uniqueNoCount unique clicks only (by IP)
browserNoFilter by browser name
countryNoFilter by country code (e.g., 'US', 'GB')
link_idNoFilter by specific link ID
platformNoFilter by platform (e.g., 'desktop', 'mobile', 'tablet')
frequencyNoTime granularity: 'day' (default) or 'hour'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns click counts over time, which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or result size limits.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and output. Perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of output schema and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the return type and purpose. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly mention time granularity, but that is in the schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. Description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the context of 'time-series' and 'charting' helps interpret the role of parameters like frequency and filters.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'time-series click analytics data', the purpose 'for charting', and the output 'returns click counts over time'. This differentiates it from sibling 'get_analytics_by' which likely aggregates differently.

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?

Description implies use for charting time-series data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_analytics_by'. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

All linkly toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_links` and `search_links`, and between the several analytics/click tools. However, descriptions clarify their differences, reducing ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun pattern, but `batchDeleteLinks` uses camelCase, breaking consistency. Additionally, `ping` and `test_authentication` deviate from the resource-based naming.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for the scope, covering links, domains, analytics, webhooks, and workspace management. Each tool has a clear role, though the count could be slightly reduced by merging some analytics tools.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for links and domains, analytics (raw and aggregated), webhook management, workspace settings, and authentication checks. No obvious gaps for a URL shortening service.

Resources