portfolio_overviewVisitors and pageviews for every site this account can use, owned and shared alike, with change vs the previous period, busiest first. Shared sites are flagged. period: '7d' default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | relative period like '24h', '7d' (default), '4w' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sites | Yes | ||
| period | Yes | ||
| account | 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?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-open-world behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: all sites are aggregated, shared sites are flagged, results are sorted busiest first, and the default period is 7 days. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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 two tight sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately state the most important behavioral details. Every clause adds value; there is no filler or redundant repetition of the title.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: scope, period, sorting, and shared-site highlighting. It does not mention pagination or data volume, but the output schema and read-only annotation reduce the need for that detail.
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?
The single parameter 'period' is fully documented in the input schema with examples and default. The description repeats only the default value, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100%.
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 states that this tool returns visitors and pageviews for every site on the account, including owned and shared sites. It also specifies output details like change vs previous period, ordering, and shared-site flags, making it easy to distinguish from more narrowly scoped siblings like get_overview.
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?
The description implies this is the tool for account-wide traffic metrics ('every site this account can use'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer the intended use, but the description leaves sibling differentiation to the reader.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct resources or analytic questions: site CRUD, annotation handling, overviews, funnels, journeys, and diagnostic checks are separated. A few tools like get_overview, query, and what_changed could overlap when asking 'what happened', but their descriptions differentiate the intended use well.
The CRUD tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (create_site, delete_site, list_sites, update_site_context), but analysis tools mix bare nouns (funnel, journeys), bare verbs (query), adverb-verb compounds (compare_around), and what_* question phrases (what_broke, what_changed). Naming is readable and snake_case is consistent, but the overall convention is not uniform.
15 tools is within the well-scoped range and each tool earns its place: site management, annotation tracking, traffic overview, discovery, diagnostics, and comparison all have dedicated tools. There is no obvious redundancy or padding.
The surface covers the core domain well: sites can be created, listed, deleted, and contextualized; annotations can be recorded and listed; analytics support overview, breakdown, funnel, journey, and anomaly questions. Minor gaps exist such as no update/delete for annotations and no single-site getter separate from list_sites, but agents can work around these.