Retrieve email delivery totals and rates—delivered, bounced, opens, and clicks—for a chosen date range or 7d, 30d, or 90d period to review campaign performance.
Get totals and rates (delivered, bounced, opens, clicks) for a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| period | No | Period shorthand: 7d, 30d or 90d |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned metric categories and the date-range scoping, and 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not describe default date behavior, period precedence, authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler language. Every phrase contributes to stating the tool's purpose and metric scope.
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 read-only analytics tool, the description covers the core purpose and metrics. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain return shape, optional-parameter defaults, and how period relates to from/to.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces date-range scoping but adds no detail on how from/to and period interact, whether period overrides dates, or what defaults apply when no parameters are provided.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: get analytics totals and rates for delivered, bounced, opens, and clicks. It is clear enough to distinguish an overview-aggregate tool from adjacent analytics tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_analytics_timeseries or get_analytics_domains.
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?
The description gives only the implied use case of retrieving analytics for a date range. It does not say when to choose this tool over get_analytics_timeseries, get_analytics_domains, or export_analytics_csv, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.