Skip to main content
Glama
social-watch-mcp

social-watch-mcp

by denis1stomin

post_stats

Read-only

Fetches views, likes, replies, reposts, shares, and downloads for a given social post, game, or video by platform and ID, helping you review engagement metrics.

Instructions

Numbers for one post/game/video by id: views, likes, replies, reposts/shares, downloads, as far as the platform gives them.

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": {
      "platform": "<platform>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "post_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
platformYesOne of: threads, itch, youtube, x

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with 'as far as the platform gives them', warning that metric availability varies per platform and results may be partial rather than erroring.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the keying parameter, and the returned fields with zero filler. The trailing caveat is attached efficiently rather than as a separate sentence.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and rich annotations, listing the returned metrics in the description is the right compensation. The only real gap is how to source or format the id for each platform.

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 coverage is 50%: 'platform' is documented inline with its enum, but 'id' has no schema description. The description partially compensates by tying the id to heterogeneous entity types (post/game/video), hinting that id format depends on platform, but it never states id formats or whether ids are cross-platform.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific resource and scope: per-item stats ('one post/game/video by id') and enumerates the metrics returned. An agent can distinguish it from the aggregate-sounding sibling 'totals' by the word 'one', though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'totals' or 'recent_posts'. The phrase 'by id' implies the caller must already have an id, but the prerequisite of obtaining an id first is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools