sprkly_get_post_statusFull detail for one post: status, targets, scheduled and published times, permalink, and the failure reason if it did not publish. Media comes back as mediaIds in slide order, not as links. Ids and profile ids are plumbing: talk to the user about accounts by handle and about posts by their caption, and do not read ids out unless they ask for one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | The scheduled post id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
ReadOnlyHint is already true, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: media comes back as mediaIds, not links, and failure reason is included if not published. It also advises not to read ids out loud—beyond the annotation's scope.
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 sentences, tightly packed with all necessary details. The first sentence states what data comes back; the second adds crucial format and interaction notes. No fluff.
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 covers the return values explicitly (status, targets, times, permalink, failure reason, mediaIds). It also handles potential edge cases (e.g., failed publication). The id handling guidance further completes the context for real usage.
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 100% for post_id, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context about how to handle ids (plumbing, talk by caption/handle), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'The scheduled post id' and informs the parameter's usage in conversation.
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 it retrieves full detail for one post, listing specific fields (status, targets, times, permalink, failure reason). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sprkly_list_scheduled_posts (which lists) and sprkly_get_post_approval_status (which is approval-specific).
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?
It clearly implies usage for retrieving details of a single specific post, as opposed to listing or approval. There's no explicit 'when not to use', but the context is clear. It also provides guidance on how to interact with ids, which is useful.
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.