get_best_timesThe suggested posting times for the project's audience in the next days (from the audience's habits or, with enough history, from the account's own numbers), at least 3 hours away from other posts. Each time has a score from 0 to 1; the best one is marked. Pass video_id when moving a video, so its own time doesn't block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| video_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a minimum 3-hour spacing constraint against other posts, scores in the 0-1 range, and the best time being flagged. It doesn't say what happens when no history or audience data exists, which would round this out.
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 dense sentences that front-load the returned value and then the caveat about video_id. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical about data sourcing slightly interrupts the flow of the first sentence.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the right thing by describing the return shape (times with 0-1 scores, best one marked). The remaining gap is parameter definition — notably project and the days window — which an agent needs to call correctly.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains video_id's purpose well and implies days via 'the next days,' but never defines the days window (1-31), the default when omitted, or what 'project' identifies. Partial compensation only.
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?
States a specific resource (suggested posting times for the project's audience) and adds the derivation logic (audience habits, or the account's own numbers when history exists). It doesn't name a sibling to distinguish from (e.g., get_calendar or get_plans could be confused with scheduling data), but the verb+resource is unmistakable.
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 only conditional guidance is 'Pass video_id when moving a video, so its own time doesn't block' — useful but narrow, covering one parameter rather than when to call this tool at all. There's no statement of when to prefer this over get_calendar or the slot-creation tools, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.
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.