Tideways MCP Server

Get historical report

tideways_get_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve daily, weekly, or monthly performance reports for a past date, including requests, error rate, p95, top transactions, and timeline, to compare periods.

Instructions

Daily, weekly or monthly performance report for a past date: total requests, error rate, p95, top 20 transactions by impact and a timeline. Use to compare days or weeks. A period that has not ended covers only its finished hours (pendingBuckets > 0), and today has no data until it ends; compare such periods per day or use tideways_get_performance_summary. Covers production and the project's default service only; for another environment or service use tideways_get_performance with end and minutes=1440 (one day per call).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Day to report, "YYYY-MM-DD". For week the API uses the Monday of that week, for month the 1st.
`detail`	No	"concise" (default) returns a trimmed summary. "full" also includes the unmodified API response under "raw"; it can be very large.	concise
`project`	No	Tideways project as "project" or "organization/project". Defaults to the defaultProject that tideways_list_projects reports; call it for valid names.
`granularity`	No		day

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Unmodified Tideways API response; present only when detail is "full".
`report`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`timeline`	Yes	Hourly (UTC) for a day; daily (UTC date, max p95) for a week or month. The first and last days can be partial because the report follows the organization's calendar
`dateRange`	Yes	Report boundaries in the organization's local calendar (timeline keys are UTC)
`transactions`	Yes	Top 20 transactions by impact
`pendingBuckets`	Yes	Hours of the period not aggregated yet (zero-filled by the API, left out); when > 0, report totals cover only part of the period
`transactionCount`	Yes	Transactions in the full report; only the top 20 by impact are listed, detail "full" has all under raw.transaction_report

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds real behavioral depth beyond that: unfinished periods return only completed hours (pendingBuckets > 0), today has no data until it ends, and the tool is scoped to production and the project's default service. These are non-obvious constraints that would otherwise cause silent misinterpretation of results.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the report contains, then edge-case caveats, then sibling routing. Dense but every clause carries information; the final routing sentence is long but earns its length by naming exact parameters for the alternative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with the annotations and 75% schema coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: payload contents, period-edge behavior, environment/service scope, and the exact escape hatch for other scopes.

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 75% and the description reinforces it by mapping the day/week/month choice onto period semantics and explaining that unfinished periods are truncated. It does not directly explain the granularity enum or the detail=full size warning, but it adds interpretive meaning for the date argument that the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource (performance report for a past date) and enumerates the exact payload the agent gets: total requests, error rate, p95, top 20 transactions, timeline. An agent can distinguish it from tideways_get_performance and tideways_get_performance_summary 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?

Explicitly names alternatives with the conditions that select them: use tideways_get_performance_summary for unfinished periods, and tideways_get_performance with end plus minutes=1440 for another environment or service. It also states the intended use case ('to compare days or weeks'), so both when and when-not are covered.

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

Deploy Server