postnext

Read channel analytics

get_channel_analytics

Read-only

Aggregate performance for one connected channel, or for every channel at once. Returns impressions, reach, likes, comments and engagement rate for the period, the change against the preceding period of the same length, and the follower series. Omit platform for a team-wide total; pass platform (plus channelName or providerId from list_connected_accounts when that platform has more than one account connected) to scope it. providerId still identifies the account after its handle changes. period is 7d, 30d, 90d or all, defaulting to 30d. Use this for "how did LinkedIn do this month?"; use get_post_metrics for a single post and get_best_time_to_post for scheduling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	No
`platform`	No
`providerId`	No
`channelName`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`scope`	Yes
`period`	Yes
`totals`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes
`followers`	Yes
`capability`	No
`vsPrevious`	No
`dataThrough`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026
- removedOutput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```

Changed1 schema field changedSep 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / providerId

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 256,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the omit-platform default (team-wide total), the fact that providerId survives a handle change, and the 30d period default.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the capability statement leads, scoping rules follow, and usage routing anchors the end. Every sentence adds information, though the run-on scoping sentence slightly reduces readability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and all parameters, defaults, and usage conditions are covered. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains that omitting platform yields a team-wide total, that channelName/providerId scope a platform with multiple accounts, that providerId persists across handle changes, and it enumerates period values and the default. Minor gap is that channelName vs providerId selection logic could be sharper.

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?

States a specific verb (aggregate performance) and resource (one connected channel or all channels), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_post_metrics and get_best_time_to_post. An agent can route between these without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (team-wide vs single-channel, how to scope by platform/channelName/providerId) and names the alternative tools with their distinct purposes. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All postnext 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?