get_growth_statsRetrieve growth statistics for a Kit newsletter account over a specified date range, helping track subscriber growth and account performance.
Get growth stats. Reads account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ending | No | ||
| account | No | Named private account from KIT_ACCOUNTS. Defaults to KIT_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT or the first configured account. | |
| starting | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description's only behavioral claim, 'Reads account data,' is essentially a restatement of readOnlyHint and adds no rate-limit, auth, or aggregation context beyond the structured fields.
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?
Very short and not padded, but the first sentence merely repeats the title, so a full sentence is spent without earning its place. Front-loading is technically present but the content is empty.
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 tool with three loosely documented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation gaps to fill, the description is inadequate: it does not define the metric, the time-range parameters, or the return shape. An agent would have to guess at both scope and inputs.
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 coverage is only 33% (account documented, ending and starting undocumented), so the description must compensate but does not. It adds no meaning about what starting/ending represent (date ranges? periods?) or their format, leaving two of three parameters opaque.
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 is essentially a tautology: 'Get growth stats' restates the name and title verbatim. 'Reads account data' is a vague domain hint but does not specify what 'growth stats' are (subscriber growth? revenue? email list growth?) or how it differs from siblings like get_email_stats and get_subscriber_stats.
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 prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call get_growth_stats, get_email_stats, or get_subscriber_stats. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.