Get approval status
sprkly_get_post_approval_statusWhether a post is awaiting human review, approved or rejected, including reviewer notes and timestamps.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | The scheduled post id. |
sprkly_get_post_approval_statusWhether a post is awaiting human review, approved or rejected, including reviewer notes and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | The scheduled post id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds value by specifying the exact output content (reviewer notes and timestamps) and the possible states, which are behavioral details beyond the annotation. No contradictions.
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 a single sentence that directly conveys the essential information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core question ('Whether a post is...') and includes all relevant details. Every word earns its place.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns (status, notes, timestamps) and does not require additional context. The presence of annotations and a simple schema covers the remaining needs.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a minimal description ('The scheduled post id.'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, such as format or scope. Since coverage is high, 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 tool's purpose: to return the approval status of a post (awaiting review, approved, rejected) along with reviewer notes and timestamps. This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_post_status' which likely covers a different aspect of post status.
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 implies usage for checking approval status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sprkly_get_post_status'. There is no when-not-to-use or mention of alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate context.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, and detailed descriptions make subtle differences clear. Minor ambiguity exists between sprkly_list_profiles and sprkly_list_connected_social_accounts, and between sprkly_get_post_status and sprkly_get_post_approval_status, but the descriptions provide enough context to disambiguate.
All tools share the sprkly_ prefix and use a snake_case verb_noun pattern. Read operations are consistently split between get_ for singular/detail and list_ for plural collections, with action verbs like schedule, draft, delete, request, and validate following the same clear style.
18 tools is on the heavier side, but the server covers a broad social media workflow spanning scheduling, approvals, analytics, billing, and automation templates. A few tools are explicitly optional, like sprkly_add_media_from_url and sprkly_get_tiktok_posting_options, so the set could be tightened slightly, but the count remains defensible for the scope.
The core post lifecycle is well covered: draft, validate, schedule, update, delete, get status, and approval flow. Minor gaps exist around draft/media library management and automation template listing/deletion, but agents can accomplish the main scheduling tasks without dead ends.