get_analytics
Get read-only analytics for a board.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| period | No |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
FeatureJet
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates 'read-only', implying non-destructiveness, but provides no other traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or data boundaries.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, but it may be too brief given the lack of supporting parameter details.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the 'period' parameter or what analytics data is returned, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify the meaning of 'slug' or 'period', nor their expected formats or values.
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 states the tool retrieves read-only analytics for a board, using a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from tools like 'get_board', it does not explicitly differentiate from potential analytics-related siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any conditions or exclusions mentioned.
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
All tools have clearly distinct purposes. The board, post, comment, vote, analytics, changelog, queue, and utility tools each target different resources or actions without overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow verb_noun snake_case (e.g., create_board, get_post). Two tools (ping, whoami) are not verb_noun but are standard conventions, keeping overall consistency high.
Tool Count5/5
22 tools is well-scoped for a feedback board management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Completeness4/5
Covers core lifecycle for boards (CRUD + publish/unpublish), posts (CRUD + claim/release + status proposal + evidence), and comments (create/list). Missing comment update/delete and vote creation, but these are minor gaps for the domain.