Retrieve daily or hourly time series from Metricairn for product analytics metrics such as visitors, pageviews, sessions, events, and revenue over a chosen period.
Time series for a metric. metric: visitors|pageviews|sessions|events|revenue. interval: day|hour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| metric | No | visitors | |
| interval | No | day |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that - no note on scoping, rate limits, or what the series represents (raw vs aggregated).
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?
Extremely terse and front-loaded - the resource and the two key parameter vocabularies come first with no filler. It is telegraphic to the point of being cryptic, but there is no wasted sentence.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, a 3-param metric tool with 0% schema description coverage leaves the days parameter and the tool's relationship to siblings unexplained, which is a real gap for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description partially compensates by listing valid values for metric (visitors|pageviews|sessions|events|revenue) and interval (day|hour). However, the days parameter is never mentioned, and the accepted-value lists are not framed as enum constraints.
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 phrase 'Time series for a metric' identifies the resource and the shape of the result, and it enumerates the valid metric values. But there is no verb and no differentiation from close siblings like list_metrics, get_realtime, breakdown, or compare, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these to pick.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the many sibling tools that also surface metric data (get_realtime, breakdown, compare, detect_anomalies). The agent must infer the context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.