get_monthly_downloadsFetch monthly download counts for a Captivate show or single episode across the past 12 months to track and compare podcast performance trends.
Downloads per month over the past 12 months for a show, or for a single episode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show_id | Yes | Captivate show ID (from list_shows) | |
| episode_id | No | Captivate episode ID (from list_episodes) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds useful scope and time-window context but does not explain whether downloads are counted on publish date, download date, or another basis, nor does it mention rate limits or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste. The metric and time window are front-loaded, followed immediately by the scope options.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description covers what is measured and the available scopes. It still leaves gaps around what the returned monthly data looks like, whether months are calendar-aligned, and whether the current partial month is included.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that show_id alone yields show-level monthly downloads, while adding episode_id narrows the result to a single episode – a scoping distinction the schema itself does not state.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific metric (monthly downloads), a specific time window (past 12 months), and the two supported scopes (show-level or single-episode). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_total_downloads and get_average_downloads by specifying per-month granularity, but it does not explicitly name those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a show, or for a single episode', which suggests passing episode_id for episode-level data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_range_analytics, get_total_downloads, get_average_downloads, or compare_episodes, and no exclusion conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.