postly_list_workspacesLists Postly workspaces available to the authenticated connection, optionally filtered by organization. Returns workspace identifiers and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization_id | No | Optional Postly organization ID to filter by. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaces | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the authenticated connection and states that it returns workspace identifiers and metadata, which clarifies the scope. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.
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 only two sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds value: the authenticated connection, the optional filter, and the return type.
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 (one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and filtering. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.
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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter (organization_id) with a clear description, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description merely echoes 'optionally filtered by organization' without adding new details about format, behavior, or relationships. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Lists Postly workspaces') and the resource ('workspaces available to the authenticated connection'). It also mentions the optional organization filter, which adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_organizations and list_social_accounts.
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 context about the authenticated connection and optional filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as postly_list_organizations or postly_list_social_accounts. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: posts, analytics, media, schema, validation, targets, and organizational metadata are clearly separated. Even similar getters (post, post_status, post_analytics, publishing_activity) have explicit scopes that prevent misselection.
All tools follow the consistent `postly_<verb>_<noun>` pattern in lowercase snake_case. Verbs like create, get, list, update, delete, upload, validate, and resolve are used uniformly, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but every tool serves a distinct purpose in the social media publishing lifecycle. The count is justified for a comprehensive MCP, though a few could potentially be consolidated without loss of clarity.
The tool surface covers the full post lifecycle (create, read, update, delete, list), scheduling, publishing activity, analytics for both accounts and posts, media upload, channel schema validation, and target resolution. No obvious dead ends or critical missing operations for the intended domain.