get_analytics
Engagement totals per platform over a window.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
Cadencz
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what is returned, not whether the operation is read-only, what the default window is, how data is aggregated, or any other behavioral traits. The name implies retrieval but the description does not substantiate it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler and the key phrase 'Engagement totals per platform' is front-loaded. It loses a point because it is a noun fragment rather than a complete actionable sentence, though it remains appropriately concise.
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?
This is a simple tool with one optional parameter, but there is no output schema and the description is minimal. It does not convey the expected result shape, the default time window, or any usage details, leaving an agent under-informed to call it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'over a window' loosely relates to the `days` parameter, but it does not explicitly explain that `days` defines the window length, what the default is, or how to choose it. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the parameter's meaning.
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 clearly identifies the resource and output: engagement totals per platform over a window. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools, none of which focus on analytics. The lack of an explicit verb is minor because the tool name 'get' supplies the action.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context for appropriate invocation, and no mention of any exclusions. The description simply states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer when it should be called.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: plan approval, scheduling, publishing, analytics, planning, and listing all have clear boundaries. Even the schedule/publish/approve tools are easy to distinguish because their source objects and outcomes are explicitly different.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming almost uniformly follows a verb_noun snake_case pattern, such as list_brains, compose_post, and cancel_scheduled_post. The one small deviation is publish_now, which uses an adverb rather than a noun object, but the overall pattern remains highly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a content planning and social media scheduling server. Each tool addresses a meaningful part of the workflow without unnecessary bloat or redundant helpers.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers planning, composing, scheduling, publishing, canceling, analytics, and workspace/channel context. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps: no update or delete operation for drafts or scheduled posts, and no way to fetch a single post's detail beyond a list.