Contentsquare projects; page groups and mappings; goals and segments; site and page metrics; funnels and conversion steps; journeys and paths; page comparisons; impact analyses; and experience-monitoring errors.
Contentsquare
Contentsquare is an anchor experience-analytics platform because its first-party MCP exposes funnel, journey, impact, site and page metric, page-comparison, and error analysis to conversational clients while preserving existing project access.
Concrete capability record
Data, retrieval, actions, identity, and operating limits
A field-by-field summary of what the reviewed first-party references actually support. Publisher update dates and BYO-UI review dates are shown separately below.
List permitted projects; discover or recommend page groups, mappings, goals, and segments; group and filter site or page metrics; analyze funnels and drop-off, journeys, page comparisons, and impact; and analyze errors when Experience Monitoring is available.
The reviewed official MCP article documents configuration discovery, recommendations, feedback submission, and analytics retrieval, but no mutation of Contentsquare project configuration or customer-site operations. Treat the current MCP surface as analysis-focused unless a newer first-party tool reference proves otherwise.
Only Contentsquare Admins can set up and use the MCP integration. OAuth secures the connection; access tokens expire after one hour and should be refreshed automatically by the client. The connection can query only projects the authenticated Admin already has permission to access.
All connected users draw analytics calls from one account-level allowance rather than user or project pools. Require an explicit project in each analysis request, expose estimated and actual counted calls, and reserve Admin connections for approved clients because the official setup grants MCP use only to Admins.
Allowances are Free: up to 300 per month; Growth: up to 36,000 per year; Pro: up to 72,000 per year; Enterprise: up to 108,000 per year. Only calls returning analytics data count; named configuration calls do not. Processing stops at the limit. Additional capacity is offered only for Pro and Enterprise, and Error Analysis requires Experience Monitoring.
First-party access
Documented surfaces
Agent access
MCP support
Support: Official MCP server
Read scope: Admin-authorized, project-scoped discovery and analysis of mappings, page groups, goals, segments, site and page metrics, funnels, journeys, page comparisons, impact, and eligible experience-monitoring errors.
Write scope: No Contentsquare project or site mutation is documented in the current MCP article. `submitMcpFeedback` is a service-feedback tool and should not be classified as a customer-data write surface.
Authentication: OAuth through the Contentsquare MCP setup flow. Access tokens expire after one hour and are expected to refresh automatically through the connected AI client.
Approval boundary: The current documented MCP is analysis-focused, so the consequential boundary is Admin connection approval and consumption of the shared account allowance, not an operational write confirmation. A request should identify the project and expected analysis calls before execution.
Confirm the current tool catalog, plan, region, scopes, rate limits, terms, and write behavior before implementation.
Editorial assessment
Access-maturity dimensions
A comparative architecture lens—not a quality score, market ranking, or buying recommendation. Scale: 1–5.
Proposed customer-shaped experiences
What customers could create on top.
The output could be an export, report, graph, artifact, application, agent, workflow, or downstream feed. These proposals are derived from documented access—not claims that Contentsquare ships them.
Single-platform patterns
- Digital-friction and journey-diagnostics room
- Executive insight brief
- Experiment review board
- Anomaly investigation room
Multi-platform compositions
- Contentsquare + warehouse or semantic layer: executive insight brief
- Contentsquare + CRM or lifecycle platform + work-management system: cross-system decision workspace
Evidence and dates
First-party references, with publisher and review dates separated
“Publisher updated” is shown only when the page exposes an update date. “BYO-UI reviewed” records when this research checked the reference. A missing publisher date is reported as missing—not replaced with the review date.
4 recorded sources
Plan availability and allowances, counted-call model, Admin and project permission boundary, OAuth token lifecycle, supported analytical capabilities, compatible clients, and disconnect behavior
- Publisher updated
- Jul 2, 2026
- BYO-UI reviewed
- Jul 22, 2026
Full first-party MCP setup, role, analysis, plan-limit, and lifecycle review completed 2026-07-22
First-party API reference or API overview recorded for this platform.
- Publisher updated
- Not stated by publisher
- BYO-UI reviewed
- Jul 12, 2026
Inventory source: structurally normalized; content was not individually reopened in this pass.
Current API docs describe REST export jobs and raw session/pageview data; aggregate Metrics API remains separate.
- Publisher updated
- Jul 3, 2026
- BYO-UI reviewed
- Jul 12, 2026
Full-profile first-party re-verification on 2026-07-12; see the private audit ledger.
First-party product homepage used to confirm product identity and current positioning.
- Publisher updated
- Not stated by publisher
- BYO-UI reviewed
- Jul 10, 2026
Inventory source: structurally normalized; content was not individually reopened in this pass.
Verified fact
Tied to cited first-party evidence reviewed for this profile.
Source inventory
Official links recorded for deeper research but not necessarily reopened endpoint by endpoint.
Editorial assessment
System role, maturity interpretation, and architectural boundary.
Proposed design
Interface patterns and compositions—not vendor product claims.