sprkly_list_connected_social_accountsEvery ACTIVE social account linked to this sprkly account: platform, handle, follower count, and whether it needs reconnecting. Disconnected/inactive accounts are never listed, so any profileId returned here is a valid posting target. Never returns access tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: inactive/disconnected accounts are never returned, and access tokens are never exposed. It also explains the practical implication that returned profileIds are safe posting targets.
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 concise, information-dense sentences. Every sentence contributes useful details: scope of results, exclusion behavior, and security guarantee, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is returned, what is excluded, and a security caveat. It is complete for this simple read-only listing tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the result contains rather than parameter details, which is sufficient for a no-argument tool.
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 a specific verb+resource: lists every ACTIVE social account linked to the sprkly account, with concrete fields (platform, handle, follower count, reconnect status). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing active-only accounts and valid posting targets.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve active connected accounts and valid profileId posting targets. It excludes disconnected/inactive accounts, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as sprkly_list_profiles.
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.