betterpost_list_contentList a project's content (summaries + shareable publicUrl links).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Your saved BetterPost token from a prior call (demo `bp_demo_…` or paid `bp_live_…`). Reuse the same token on every call and across conversations; omit only on the very first call to be issued a free demo token. Paid users may instead pass the key in the server URL (?key=…) or an Authorization: Bearer header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that the tool returns summaries and publicUrl links, but does not mention other behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or whether all content is listed. It does not contradict annotations.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It is concise with no extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 presence of an output schema (though not provided), the description may be somewhat complete. However, it lacks guidance on whether the list is ordered, paginated, or includes all content. For a listing tool with one parameter, it is adequate but not thorough.
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 only parameter (projectId) has no description in the input schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it. The agent is left to infer that projectId identifies the project. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema type and format.
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?
Description clearly states 'List a project's content' and specifies it returns summaries and publicUrl links. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_content (single item) and generate_content (creates). However, it could be more explicit about listing all content items, and does not differentiate from other list tools (e.g., list_projects) but those have different resources.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_content, generate_content, list_stories), the agent would benefit from hints about when to list content rather than retrieve or generate. No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.
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.