Fetch historical Pi-hole DNS activity counts—allowed, blocked, and other—per time bucket from the long-term database, with optional from_ts and until_ts filters.
Time-series activity: allowed/blocked/other counts per bucket. from_ts/until_ts use the long-term database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from_ts | No | ||
| until_ts | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / from_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}Input schema / properties / until_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the schema: that from_ts/until_ts query the long-term database rather than recent in-memory data. It says nothing about default time range when both params are null, the bucket interval, or retention limits.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Truncated phrasing ('counts per bucket', 'use the long-term database') is efficient though occasionally terse to the point of ambiguity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition omits the bucket interval, timestamp units, and the default range applied when both bounds are null. For a time-series tool with 0% param documentation, those gaps are material.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% – both parameters are undescribed nullable integers. The description adds only that the range applies to the long-term database; it does not give units (epoch seconds vs. ms), the behavior when either is null, or the default window.
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?
States a specific resource and shape: time-series counts of allowed/blocked/other per bucket. That is more than a restatement and lets an agent distinguish it from snapshot tools like get_stats. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling get_client_history.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over get_stats, get_client_history, or get_query_log, and no exclusions. The reader must infer the use case entirely from the noun phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.