Retrieve pin performance metrics like impressions, saves, and link clicks for a date range to measure engagement.
Get analytics for a pin: impressions, saves, link clicks, engagement. Dates must be in YYYY-MM-DD format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin_id | Yes | ||
| metrics | No | ||
| end_date | Yes | ||
| start_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any potential side effects. The description is purely functional and lacks transparency about safety or data volume.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with a format constraint for dates. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 description does not provide information about the output structure, error conditions, pagination, or limits. Given that the tool has an output schema, the description could have outlined expected response fields or noted potential edge cases. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a production API.
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 has no descriptions for parameters, and the tool description adds minimal meaning. It mentions possible metric names but does not clarify that they correspond to the 'metrics' parameter, nor does it explain pin_id, start_date, or end_date. The description fails to make the parameters self-explanatory.
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 tool's purpose: retrieving analytics for a specific pin. It lists the metrics returned (impressions, saves, link clicks, engagement) and distinguishes it from account-level analytics by the term 'pin'.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_account_analytics should be used for account-wide metrics or that search_pins is for finding pins. The usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.