betterpost_list_storiesReturns a project's gathered stories, each with title, url, summary, relevancy, publicationDate, and isManual/isHidden flags. Pass includeHidden to include hidden ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ||
| includeHidden | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stories | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint=true` and `destructiveHint=false`. The description adds the returned fields and a filter parameter, which provides some behavioral detail beyond annotations, but does not significantly enhance transparency.
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?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded verb and object. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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's simplicity (2 parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the necessary context: what is returned, how to filter, and that it's per-project. Could mention pagination or sorting but not essential for basic use.
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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: `projectId` is implied by 'a project's', and `includeHidden` is explicitly described ('Pass includeHidden to include hidden ones'). This compensates for the lack of property descriptions.
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 returns a project's gathered stories and lists specific fields (`title`, `url`, `summary`, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `betterpost_add_story` or `betterpost_hide_story` by focusing on listing.
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 provides a practical hint ('Pass includeHidden to include hidden ones') and implies the tool is for reading stories of a specific project. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a simple list operation.
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.