Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Shager

by ai.shager
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

What works on each network

get_network_features
Read-onlyIdempotent

The feature × network table the site shows on /networks, built from the same code: for each kind of account (Facebook Page or profile, Instagram, Threads, YouTube, X, LinkedIn profile or company Page, TikTok, Bluesky, Telegram, Mastodon, Pinterest, Google Business Profile) whether it is open to everyone today, publishes automatically, takes a first comment and a video cover, lets you read, answer, hide and delete comments, runs auto-replies and private messages, reports post numbers, and whether removing it in Shager also cancels access at the network. value: yes, limited (see note), later (built, waiting for the network's approval of Shager), no (the network doesn't allow it). Check it before promising a feature to a person.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_network_features"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNoen

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by defining what each status value means (yes, limited, later, no) and noting that the table is built from the same code as the site, but it stops short of describing the return format or how the language parameter affects output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear opening phrase, but it becomes a dense, run-on list of every account type and capability. It conveys useful scope information but could be structured more efficiently, for example by summarizing rather than enumerating every feature.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand what data is returned and how to interpret the values. It could be improved by specifying the return format and explaining the language parameter, but it is largely complete for the task.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'language' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. While the enum values make its purpose somewhat inferable, the description fails to explain whether it controls the output language or something else, leaving a clear gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource (the feature × network table shown on /networks) and spells out the exact dimensions it covers, from account types to capabilities like auto-replies and access revocation. This level of detail makes it unmistakable which tool an agent should call for this reference data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context with 'Check it before promising a feature to a person,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives or state when not to use it, but the unique reference nature of the tool makes alternatives unlikely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Shager toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources