Skip to main content
Glama

Zernio

by com.zernio

Get post analytics timeline

analytics_get_post_timeline
Read-only

Get post analytics timeline

Args: post_id: The post to fetch timeline for. Accepts an ExternalPost ID, a platformPostId, or a Zernio Post ID. (required) from_date: Start of date range (ISO 8601). Defaults to 90 days ago. to_date: End of date range (ISO 8601). Defaults to now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
post_idYes
to_dateNo
from_dateNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already communicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful details like supported post ID formats and default date range, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as error behavior, timezone handling, or metric aggregation semantics.

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 compact and front-loads the tool's purpose, but the opening line repeats the title verbatim rather than adding new information. After that, it efficiently covers parameters and defaults with no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only post-timeline endpoint, the description provides all critical parameters and defaults needed to invoke it. The output schema likely documents the response shape, so lack of return-value detail is acceptable. It is not quite complete because it does not contextualize the result granularity or clarify how this timeline differs from sibling analytics tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters. It clearly states that post_id accepts three ID formats, that from_date and to_date use ISO 8601, and what those dates default to.

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 it gets a post analytics timeline, which identifies the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling analytics tools like analytics_get_daily_metrics or analytics_get_best_time_to_post, so it lands below a top score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling analytics tools. It does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or preferred contexts. While it explains date range defaults, that is parameter-level information, not usage guidance.

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

All Zernio toolsInspect
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

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly separated by domain prefix, but several overlap: posts_publish_now duplicates posts_create's publish_now mode, posts_edit_post vs posts_update is confusing without reading both descriptions, and analytics_get_analytics broadly overlaps the more specific analytics metrics tools. The descriptions do help disambiguate, but the large number of similar post/analytics helpers still creates selection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable lower_snake resource_verb format, with domains like accounts_, posts_, profiles_, and queue_. However, there is notable drift: redundant suffixes (queue_create_queue_slot, tracking_tags_get_tracking_tag_stats), singular/plural mismatch (account_groups_ vs accounts_), non-prefixed helpers (call_tool, search_tools, docs_search), and paired verbs that seem arbitrary (posts_edit_post vs posts_update). It is readable but not cleanly consistent.

Tool Count2/5

51 tools is far above the range where an agent can quickly select the right one, and many entries are wrappers or variants: publish_now, edit_post, retry_all_failed, and multiple analytics/queue helpers could be consolidated. The broad domain justifies more tools than a tiny server, but this count is excessive and will add navigation overhead.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core social media management lifecycle well: profiles, accounts, posts, scheduling, queueing, analytics, comments, mentions, media uploads, tracking tags, and usage billing are all represented. There are minor gaps—tracking tags are read-only, there is no direct account connection/disconnection flow, and published-post deletion is unsupported—but agents can complete the main workflows with these tools.

Resources