Retrieve normalized, time-bucketed ad campaign metrics from local SQLite and filter by provider, project, campaign, date range, and period for cross-platform performance analysis.
Read normalized time-bucketed provider metrics saved in local SQLite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| period | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| campaign_id | No |
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 behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is a local read and that data is normalized/time-bucketed, but it does not disclose freshness, sync requirements, side effects, limits, or what the local SQLite dependency means operationally.
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 filler. It is efficient, but its brevity is also a limitation given the tool's 8-parameter query surface.
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 an 8-parameter query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough. It identifies the data source and metric type but omits filtering semantics, defaults, period behavior, and pagination/limit expectations.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It only hints at period ('time-bucketed'), provider ('provider metrics'), and campaign ('campaign_timeseries'), leaving from, to, limit, source, and project_id unexplained.
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: read normalized time-bucketed provider metrics. It also distinguishes the data source as local SQLite, which separates it from live provider report/sync siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'saved in local SQLite' implies this tool reads previously stored metrics rather than fetching live provider data. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites such as syncing first, or named alternatives like the provider report tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.