sprkly_request_post_approvalSubmit a draft post for human review. Moves the post to pending_approval and returns an approval id to poll with sprkly_get_post_approval_status. Use this when the user wants a person to sign off before anything publishes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional context for the reviewer. | |
| post_id | Yes | The draft post id to submit. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false indicates a mutation), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the post is moved to pending_approval and an approval id is returned. This helps the agent understand state changes and follow-up behavior without contradicting the annotations.
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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the state/return behavior, and the usage context. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the state change, the return value, and the appropriate usage scenario. It also directs the agent to the sibling polling tool, making the surrounding workflow clear.
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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('post_id' and 'note'). The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but it does clarify the workflow role of the approval id, so 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 states a specific action ('Submit a draft post for human review') and identifies the exact resource and state transition ('Moves the post to pending_approval'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling status-polling tool by mentioning the returned approval id and the dedicated poll tool.
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 an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use this when the user wants a person to sign off before anything publishes.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the polling sibling is referenced, providing clear workflow 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.