postsider_get_channel_analyticsRetrieve account-level analytics for a connected social channel when supported, using its channel ID and optional date range.
Get account-level analytics for a connected channel (where the provider supports it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Provider-specific date/range parameter, if required. | |
| channelId | Yes | Channel (integration) id, from postsider_list_channels. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — availability varies by provider — but says nothing about what is returned, rate limits, or auth requirements, and there is no output schema to fall back on.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the caveat trailing. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the provider caveat earns its place.
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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description omits what analytics are actually returned (metrics, granularity, date defaults), which the agent cannot recover from structured fields. The core call mechanics are clear enough, but the return contract is unstated.
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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents that channelId comes from postsider_list_channels and that date is provider-specific. The description adds nothing beyond 'for a connected channel', so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource (get account-level analytics for a connected channel) and scopes it as 'account-level', which implicitly separates it from the post-level sibling postsider_get_post_analytics. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary between the two analytics tools.
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 parenthetical '(where the provider supports it)' signals a precondition and implies usage is provider-dependent, which is real guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool, states when-not to use it, or explains what to do when the provider does not support it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.