get_planned_scriptsRead the full text of specific scripts in the user's content plan, by id — the words themselves, not just titles. Use it before rewriting or reviewing a script, or when the user asks about one ('check the hook on Tuesday's'). Up to 20 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | The scripts to read in full, at most 20 per call. Ids come from list_planned_scripts. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide read-only/idempotent safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns full text, not just titles, and imposes a per-call limit of 20, though the limit is also in the schema. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but for this simple read tool the added clarity is sufficient.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the core purpose, provide usage context, and state the limit. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with a single param, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its constraints. No critical information is missing.
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 100% (the single 'ids' parameter is fully described, including the source 'Ids come from list_planned_scripts' and limit). The description only repeats 'by id' and 'Up to 20 per call,' adding minimal value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('specific scripts in the user's content plan'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'the words themselves, not just titles.' This is a clear, distinct purpose.
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?
It explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use it before rewriting or reviewing a script, or when the user asks about one') and contrasts with listing tools via 'not just titles,' giving context on when to prefer this over alternatives.
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-action pair: planning (add, edit, archive, list, get, reorder), teleprompter delivery (send), and scheduled posts (list, cancel, retry). Even closely named tools like get_planned_scripts vs list_planned_scripts are clearly separated by metadata vs full-text purpose. No two tools overlap in function.
Names are uniformly snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern, but there is slight inconsistency: 'add_scripts_to_plan' uses a prepositional phrase while similar operations use past-participle adjectives ('edit_planned_scripts', 'archive_planned_scripts'). Verb choices like list vs get are consistent with their functions. Minor deviations prevent a perfect score but the pattern is highly predictable.
12 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a focused domain. Each tool covers a clear need for content planning and teleprompter delivery without bloat or missing essentials. The count feels appropriately scoped for the server's purpose.
The toolset offers full lifecycle coverage for content plans (create, read, update, delete via archive, reorder) and scheduled posts (list, cancel, retry), with connected account listing for context. The only seemingly absent operation—permanent deletion—is intentionally excluded for safety. Read and write paths are complete, and the design prevents dead ends.