SuperPost

Get idea performance

get_idea_performance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares topics, labels, and linked ideas across available managed and imported history for the selected time window and scope. Ideas rejected across three distinct content units, and source-linked Ideas with three such rejects, are omitted from automatic evidence; one or two rejections lower their order. Optional topic/label and idea filters narrow the comparison. Provider, account, metric, and publication-age cohort remain distinct in the results. Fewer than three comparable peers are marked insufficient. sourceTruncated indicates repository read limits. Raw metrics are not compared across platforms.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_idea_performance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`days`	No	all
`limit`	No
`scope`	No	all
`ideaId`	No
`dimension`	No
`groupName`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`comparisons`	Yes
`sourceTruncated`	Yes
`minimumPeerSampleSize`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare this a safe, idempotent read; the description adds substantial behavior on top: ideas rejected across three distinct content units are omitted, one or two rejections lower ordering, fewer than three comparable peers are flagged insufficient, sourceTruncated signals repository read limits, and raw metrics are not compared cross-platform. These are real ranking and suppression rules an agent could not learn from the structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational meaning about ranking or filtering. It is dense with undefined domain terms such as 'content units', 'automatic evidence', and 'publication-age cohort', which slows comprehension even though no sentence is pure filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, yet the description still explains return-adjacent markers like sourceTruncated and the insufficient-peers flag, which is helpful. However, for a six-parameter, jargon-heavy comparison tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving limit, groupName, and the days format undocumented is a material gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it only partly does: it covers the time window, scope, and optional topic/label and idea filters. The limit parameter is never mentioned (not even its default of 40 or max of 100), groupName is unexplained, and the 'all' string form of days is not clarified.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: comparing topics, labels, and linked ideas over a time window and scope. That is distinguishable from list-oriented siblings like list_ideas and from get_idea_potential, but the description never names an alternative, so the differentiation is conceptual rather than explicit.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_idea_potential, list_ideas, or get_context. The clause about optional topic/label and idea filters narrowing the comparison describes parameters, not selection criteria, so an agent must infer the use case from the purpose sentence alone.

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

All SuperPost tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?