Enterprise Threads MCP Server

get_my_insights

Retrieve account analytics and insights for Threads by defining metrics, period, and date range. Analyze performance to guide content decisions.

Instructions

Get analytics and insights for your account

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "metrics": "<metrics>"
    },
    "name": "get_my_insights"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`since`	No	ISO 8601 start date
`until`	No	ISO 8601 end date
`period`	No	Time period for metrics
`metrics`	Yes	Metrics to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv5.1.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get analytics...' which essentially restates the tool's name; it does not disclose how data is returned, whether it is read-only, or any rate limits or permission requirements. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substantive content. It essentially restates the tool's name and provides no further clarification, so it does not fully earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no context about available metrics, date handling, or return format, leaving the agent under-informed for a broad analytics tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all four parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get analytics and insights for your account' – a specific read operation with a clear resource (account analytics). However, it is vague and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_enhanced_insights, get_follower_growth_analytics, or get_content_performance_report, which also provide account-level 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or refer to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess which analytics tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server