list_scheduled_postsScheduled, in-progress, published or failed posts, with their public link and view count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| creator | No | Agency creator to scope to, by name or id (see the creator profiles of the account). 'default' targets the default profile, the one without a named creator. Omit to cover all creators of the organization. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| posts | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / creatorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Agency creator to scope to, by name or id (see the creator profiles of the account). 'default' targets the default profile, the one without a named creator. Omit to cover all creators of the organization.",
+ "maxLength": 100,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that returned items include a public link and view count, which is mild context, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or the 50-item cap behavior that annotations don't cover.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is efficient, but it is a bare noun phrase that leads with enumeration rather than stating the action and scope up front.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, but the description leaves dangling basics: which organization/creator scope is default, how limit behaves, and how this differs from the other list_* tools. For a zero-required-parameter listing tool this is thin.
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 coverage is 50%: the creator parameter is fully documented in the schema, but limit has no description and the tool description compensates for neither. It adds no syntax, default, or scoping detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 names the resource (posts) and enumerates the statuses covered (scheduled, in-progress, published, failed), plus the payload (public link, view count). However, it has no verb and never distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_clips or list_projects, so an agent must infer that this is the post-listing endpoint.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of how this relates to cancel_scheduled_post, schedule_post, or the other list_* siblings, and no note on default scoping (limit defaults to 20, creator omitted covers all creators). The agent gets no routing help.
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.