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 and openWorldHint: false, so behavioral safety is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned data (reviewer notes and timestamps), which is beyond annotation coverage and provides useful behavioral context.
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, clear sentence that immediately states the purpose and what is included. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information.
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's simplicity (one required parameter), existing annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the output scope (approval state, reviewer notes, timestamps) and does not leave major gaps. Minor edge-case details (e.g., errors or missing posts) are not necessary for this level of complexity.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single property post_id, which is already well-documented ('The scheduled post id.'). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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: it retrieves the approval status of a post (awaiting review, approved, or rejected) and includes reviewer notes and timestamps. This is a specific verb (get) with a specific resource (approval status) and differentiates from sibling tool sprkly_get_post_status, which likely covers general posting 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 when to use it (when you need approval status and related details) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Given the clear name and context, the usage is easily inferred, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives like sprkly_get_post_status.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: media ingestion, draft creation, scheduling, deleting, updating, validation, approval, analytics, and account/profile listing. The only slight overlap is between sprkly_list_profiles and sprkly_list_scheduled_posts, but they serve clearly different purposes (target selection vs. queue view).
All 16 tools follow the exact sprkly_verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. Verbs are consistent (add, delete, draft, get, list, request, schedule, update, validate) and nouns are clear (media, scheduled_post, account_summary, analytics, profiles, etc.). No style mixing or vague naming.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 sweet spot but each tool covers a distinct part of the content-scheduling lifecycle. The count feels justified given the breadth of features (media, drafts, scheduling, approvals, analytics), though a few tools could be merged (e.g., get_account_summary could be part of analytics) without much loss.
The surface covers the core workflows well: draft, schedule, update, delete, approve, validate, and analyze. Minor gaps exist—there's no explicit tool to list drafts or edit a draft after submission, and no direct way to unpublish or cancel an approval—but the domain is well-served for typical scheduling needs.