postsider_get_post_analyticsRetrieve performance metrics for a single post over a chosen lookback window. Use it to track engagement and results on providers that support post analytics.
Get performance analytics for a single post over the last N days (where the provider supports it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look-back window in days (default 7). | |
| postId | Yes | Post id. |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the tool is provider-dependent ('where the provider supports it'). It says nothing about rate limits or what the returned metrics contain.
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 zero filler; the resource, scope, and the provider caveat are all packed in without padding.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description could have indicated what 'performance analytics' actually returns (impressions, engagement, etc.); it does not. Annotations and full schema coverage carry most of the burden, but for an analytics tool the return-content gap keeps this at minimum viable.
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, both documented in the schema (including the default of 7 and the exclusive minimum for 'days'), so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'last N days' loosely restates the 'days' parameter but adds no format or boundary detail beyond the schema.
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 performance analytics for a single post') and scopes it by a look-back window, which clearly distinguishes it from the channel-wide sibling 'postsider_get_channel_analytics'. It stops just short of naming that sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the word 'single post'.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the per-post counterpart to channel analytics, and the caveat 'where the provider supports it' signals a conditional availability. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.