Misar.Blog MCP Server

Get analytics summary

get_analytics_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarise the account's performance over a trailing window: page views, gross and net revenue, and active subscriber count.

Use it for 'how did I do this month' style questions. These are whole-account totals — it cannot break results down per article, and it covers a trailing window ending today rather than an arbitrary date range.

Reads only. Requires an API key. Revenue is returned in cents (revenue_cents gross, revenue_net_cents after fees) with a formatted revenue_usd added for convenience — read the cents fields when doing arithmetic. Zero views is a real answer, not an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Size of the trailing window in days, ending today. 1-365, defaults to 30. Use 7 for a week, 365 for a year.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, non-destructive hints, and the description adds valuable context: requires an API key, revenue is returned in cents (revenue_cents, revenue_net_cents) plus a formatted revenue_usd, and zero views is a real answer rather than an error. This exceeds the annotation baseline and enriches agent understanding.

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 organized into three tight paragraphs: definition, usage context, and behavioral/unit details. Every sentence contributes unique value with no filler or repetition, making it efficient and well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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 no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies return metrics, units, auth requirements, and edge-case handling (zero views), leaving the agent fully informed about invocation and interpretation.

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?

The single parameter 'days' has a full schema description covering range, default, and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description reinforces the trailing-window and ending-today semantics but does not add new parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'summarise' and the resource 'account's performance', enumerating specific metrics: page views, gross and net revenue, and active subscriber count. It distinguishes itself from per-article analytics by explicitly noting it cannot break results down per article, making it distinct from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly provides a usage scenario ('how did I do this month' style questions) and clear exclusions (no per-article breakdown, no arbitrary date range). However, it does not name any alternative sibling tools, so the guidance falls just short of a full 5.

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

All Misar.Blog MCP Server 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools mostly map to clearly distinct resources and actions, with good behavioral separation between create_draft, publish_article, and update_article, and between the two title-generating tools. Some naming choices are still slightly misleading, such as get_series returning the full collection rather than a single series, and generate_cover_image references a non-existent upload_image tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clean lowercase verb_noun pattern, including create_*, get_*, list_*, and add_* names. Notable exceptions are upgrade, a bare verb that also mixes read and mutate behaviors, and get_series, which functions more like a list than a get.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is in the heavy range for an MCP server, exceeding the ideal 3-15 span. That said, the tools do span legitimate blogging concerns such as articles, reactions, series, newsletters, analytics, and AI assistance, so the count feels broad rather than padded.

Completeness2/5

The surface covers article creation, reading, updating, and publishing, but there is no delete or unpublish for articles/drafts, no way to remove an article from a series, and no update/delete for series. The dangling reference to upload_image in generate_cover_image also suggests a missing tool, and agents will hit dead ends trying to undo publication or remove content.

Resources

Need Help?