betterpost_suggest_topicsClusters a project's current stories into a few candidate angles — each with a label, how many stories back it, and example headlines — and warms the project (gathers and ranks fresh stories) in the process. Returns topics you can offer the user before generate_content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| projectId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topics | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the side effect of 'warming' the project (gathering and ranking stories), consistent with readOnlyHint=false. Adds context beyond 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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the main action. Could be slightly more structured but functional.
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?
Describes output (topics with label, stories back, headlines) but leaves parameter details and side-effect implications unexplained. Adequate given output schema exists.
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?
No parameter descriptions; 0% schema coverage. Does not explain type, count, or projectId meaning despite having 3 parameters with constraints.
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 it clusters stories into candidate angles and prepares topics for generate_content. Distinguishes itself from sibling generate_content by indicating it should be used before.
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?
Implies use before generate_content but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among many siblings.
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.