Skip to main content
Glama

x_api_get_insights_historical

Fetch historical post insights for specified tweet IDs over a custom time range, with configurable granularity and metrics to analyze past performance.

Instructions

Get historical Post insights. Use when: Get historical Post insights. Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required before the API call or you are only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first. Risk: read-only. Required permissions and prerequisites: OAuth 2 user token with scopes tweet.read; OAuth 1a user token Environment-selection behavior: scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId or scopeAccountId choose the Vault/Postgres tenant principal used for auth resolution. credentialKey selects a non-default stored credential profile when present. Parameter formats and constraints: tweet_ids (query, array, required); end_time (query, string, required); start_time (query, string, required); granularity (query, string, required); requested_metrics (query, array, required). Expected response shape: { ok, status, data: { method, path, url, status, contentType, authType, data } } Common failure conditions: missing scoped credentials in Vault, missing required API parameters, X API auth failures, rate limits, or unsupported multipart/body shape. Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools: x_connection_info, x_schema_discovery, x_auth_get_scope_credentials, x_api_request. Safety warnings: This is read-only, but responses can still include sensitive account data depending on granted scopes. Example: {"name":"x_api_get_insights_historical","arguments":{"scopeTenantId":"default","scopeUserId":"default"}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_timeYes
tweet_idsYes
start_timeYes
granularityYes
scopeUserIdNo
credentialKeyNo
scopeTenantIdNo
scopeAccountIdNo
authorizationKeyNo
preferredAuthTypeNo
requested_metricsYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly states read-only risk, required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior for credentials, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is thorough behavioral disclosure beyond what the schema conveys.

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 uses labeled sections covering many aspects, which aids scanning. It earns its length mostly, but the 'Use when' section is a tautological waste and there is overlap between 'Risk' and 'Safety warnings.' Overall it is well-structured but not perfectly lean.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides extensive context: purpose, prerequisites, environment behavior, parameter formats, response shape, failures, recommended tools, safety, and an example. Minor gaps remain for optional authentication parameters, but overall it is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the parameter section is essential. It adds query-location and requiredness for the five API parameters, and the environment-selection paragraph explains scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not described, leaving a gap for optional auth parameters.

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 opens with 'Get historical Post insights,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly identifies the tool's function but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like x_api_get_insights28_hr or x_api_get_posts_analytics.

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 'Use when' line merely repeats the purpose ('Get historical Post insights') and provides no contextual trigger or comparison to alternatives. Although the 'Do not use when' line offers some exclusions for auth/config prerequisites and exploration, no positive usage conditions are conveyed.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LesterAJohn/X-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server