get_project_seriesGet recent attention history for a Project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End of time window (ISO 8601) | |
| from | No | Start of time window (ISO 8601) | |
| measure | Yes | trend for hourly scores; rank for recorded Trend-rank changes | |
| idOrSlug | Yes | Project ID or slug; slug aliases resolve |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / measure / descriptionPrevious value: -"trend for hourly scores; emergence for retained pre-quarantine six-hour measurements (not breakout probabilities); rank for recorded Trend-rank changes"New value: +"trend for hourly scores; rank for recorded Trend-rank changes"Input schema / properties / measure / enumPrevious value: -[
- "trend",
- "emergence",
- "rank"
-]New value: +[
+ "trend",
+ "rank"
+]Output schema / properties / data / properties / basis / enumPrevious value: -[
- "hourly",
- "six_hourly",
- "rank_transitions"
-]New value: +[
+ "hourly",
+ "rank_transitions"
+]Output schema / properties / data / properties / measure / enumPrevious value: -[
- "trend",
- "emergence",
- "rank"
-]New value: +[
+ "trend",
+ "rank"
+]Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / measure / descriptionPrevious value: -"trend for hourly scores; emergence for completed six-hour scores; rank for recorded Trend-rank changes"New value: +"trend for hourly scores; emergence for retained pre-quarantine six-hour measurements (not breakout probabilities); rank for recorded Trend-rank changes"Input schema / properties / measure / descriptionPrevious value: -"trend for hourly history; rank for recorded rank changes"New value: +"trend for hourly scores; emergence for completed six-hour scores; rank for recorded Trend-rank changes"Input schema / properties / measure / enumPrevious value: -[
- "trend",
- "rank"
-]New value: +[
+ "trend",
+ "emergence",
+ "rank"
+]Output schema / properties / data / properties / basis / enumPrevious value: -[
- "hourly",
- "rank_transitions"
-]New value: +[
+ "hourly",
+ "six_hourly",
+ "rank_transitions"
+]Output schema / properties / data / properties / measure / enumPrevious value: -[
- "trend",
- "rank"
-]New value: +[
+ "trend",
+ "emergence",
+ "rank"
+]Output schema / properties / meta / properties / versionsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / meta / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "versions"
+]Input schema / properties / from / descriptionPrevious value: -"Window start (ISO 8601)"New value: +"Start of time window (ISO 8601)"Input schema / properties / idOrSlug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Canonical Project id or slug"New value: +"Project ID or slug; slug aliases resolve"Input schema / properties / measure / descriptionPrevious value: -"Measurement series"New value: +"trend for hourly history; rank for recorded rank changes"Input schema / properties / to / descriptionPrevious value: -"Window end (ISO 8601)"New value: +"End of time window (ISO 8601)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'recent' implying a time constraint but does not elaborate on bounds, pagination, or output behavior. With annotations present, the description is adequate but adds little beyond the abstract term 'attention history.'
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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy. Every part 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?
Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered), 4 parameters with optional time window, and an enum, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the from/to filtering capability or default behavior. 'Recent' is vague, leaving the agent to infer that from/to control the window.
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%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters (e.g., default time windows or the meaning of 'trend' vs 'rank'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the burden.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'recent attention history for a Project,' using a specific verb and resource. It implies time-series data, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (static details) and get_topic_series (topic attention). However, it could more explicitly define 'attention history' or contrast with siblings.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_project for static info, get_topic_series for topics'). The agent receives no help in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action: single vs. list (get vs. list), intel vs. project vs. topic vs. report vs. cluster vs. vocabulary vs. credential check. No two tools have overlapping purposes; the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Uses a consistent pattern: get_ for singular retrieval, list_ for plural searches/listing. Only 'me' deviates, but it's a standard name for credential checks. The pattern is predictable and easy to follow.
12 tools cover a focused domain (crypto intelligence) without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place: core entities (projects, topics, intel), plus series, reports, vocabulary, clusters, and auth check. The count feels well-scoped.
The server provides a complete read surface for its domain: listing, searching, getting details, historical series, reports, and filter metadata. No obvious gaps for consuming intelligence (CRUD not expected in a read-only API).