Transistor-MCP

compare_episodes

Compare download performance across multiple podcast episodes. Get side-by-side stats including total downloads, daily average, peak day, and days since publish.

Instructions

Compare download performance across 2 or more episodes. Returns side-by-side stats: total downloads, daily average, peak day, and days since publish for each episode.

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": {
      "episode_ids": "<episode_ids>"
    },
    "name": "compare_episodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end_date`	No	End date (accepts yyyy-mm-dd or dd-mm-yyyy) (optional)
`start_date`	No	Start date (accepts yyyy-mm-dd or dd-mm-yyyy) (optional)
`episode_ids`	Yes	Array of episode IDs to compare (minimum 2)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the output (side-by-side stats) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or prerequisites. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded. Every word adds value with no fluff. Highly concise while conveying purpose and output.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Description explains return values sufficiently for a comparison tool with no output schema. It could mention handling of episodes with zero downloads or edge cases, but overall complete enough for most use cases.

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%, so all parameters are documented in schema. The description adds minimal extra semantics; it repeats the min 2 episodes requirement already present in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compares download performance across 2+ episodes and lists specific stats returned (total downloads, daily average, peak day, days since publish). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_download_summary (single episode) and get_all_episode_analytics (all episodes).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies usage when comparing multiple episodes ('2 or more') but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor mention alternatives. Good context but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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