Retrieve publication metrics for a content item across all channels to identify which variants performed best before creating the next round of variants.
[Feedback loop] Get publication metrics for a content item — all publish events across channels. Use to learn which variants performed best before creating the next round of variants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_id | Yes | Content ID to get metrics for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully scopes the output ('all publish events across channels'), but says nothing about auth requirements, result format, or whether the data is real-time or delayed beyond what the schema states.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the usage guidance, and the '[Feedback loop]' tag signals its role. No wasted wording, though the bracketed label is slightly informal.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and workflow context. Return-value detail is only described at a high level, but that is largely sufficient here.
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 100% for the single content_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Get publication metrics for a content item', with scope clarified as 'all publish events across channels'. An agent can distinguish it from get_human_feedback or get_activity_logs, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-to-use: 'Use to learn which variants performed best before creating the next round of variants', which ties it to the sibling workflow (create_variant). It gives clear context but names no alternative or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.