Fetch time series analytics metrics for a specified date range and interval to monitor trends and performance. Use this read-only endpoint to query historical data.
Get time series metrics (rate limit: 100 requests per 1m) Read-only (GET /postframe/analytics/timeseries).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| interval | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions a rate limit (100 requests per 1m) and read-only nature, which are critical for safe invocation. However, it omits details about response format or any edge cases, but the key operational constraints are covered.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes crucial operational details (rate limit, read-only) without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters. The description only provides high-level purpose and rate limit, but it does not explain what metrics are returned, how parameters affect the query, or any usage constraints. For a tool with three optional parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema lists three string parameters (to, from, interval) with no descriptions, and the description does not elaborate on their meaning, format, or expected values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents without any guidance on how to set these parameters correctly.
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 clearly states the action ('Get time series metrics') and identifies the resource (analytics timeseries). It also notes the read-only nature and HTTP endpoint, which helps differentiate from other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with getAnalyticsOverview, which might cover similar analytics data.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as getAnalyticsOverview. The description simply states what it does without providing context on selection criteria or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.