autoposter_delete_postDeletes or cancels a draft, scheduled, or pending post by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes | The post ID to delete or cancel. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes | Deleted post ID. | |
| message | No | Confirmation message. | |
| success | Yes | Whether the post was deleted successfully. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Confirmation message.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "postId": {
+ "description": "Deleted post ID.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "Whether the post was deleted successfully.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success",
+ "postId"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds genuinely useful scope (draft/scheduled/pending only, and that it can 'cancel' rather than only hard-delete), but says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to a post mid-publish.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with the eligible-state qualifier and key attached compactly. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the resource and eligible states; only minor gaps remain, such as whether cancelling a scheduled post is recoverable and what occurs if the post is already published.
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 100% for the single postId parameter, and the description adds nothing beyond 'by ID' — no format, prefix, or accepted-ID-source detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the full parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific verb pair ('deletes or cancels') and the resource ('draft, scheduled, or pending post') plus the lookup key ('by ID'). It scopes which post states are eligible, but never names a sibling tool, so an agent must infer the boundary against autoposter_publish_draft or autoposter_get_post on its own.
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 by the state list: draft/scheduled/pending posts are deletable, which weakly signals that published posts are not. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no alternative tool named for other cases, and no prerequisites stated.
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.