betterpost_get_settingsReturns a project's per-content-type settings (wordLimit and additionalInstructions for each channel).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contentTypeSettings | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description aligns by stating 'Returns', but adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and result, with no extraneous words.
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 simple tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is largely complete. It could mention the required projectId but is sufficient.
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?
The description does not explain the single parameter (projectId). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond the schema's format/pattern.
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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'project's per-content-type settings', and specifies the exact fields (wordLimit and additionalInstructions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_settings which write, making it easy to identify.
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 description implies usage for retrieving settings, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like update_settings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose—project management, source and story handling, content generation, settings, and usage—with no overlapping functionality. The descriptions clearly delineate when to use each tool.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'betterpost_<verb>_<noun>', making the set predictable and easy to navigate. The naming convention is uniform throughout.
With 23 tools, the server covers a comprehensive content generation workflow without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a necessary function, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of project management, source acquisition, story curation, content generation/derivation, and settings configuration. There are no obvious gaps that would cause an agent to fail in typical use cases.