sprkly_list_scheduled_postsThe post queue, newest first, with a caption preview, targets, status and failure reason. Supports a status filter and cursor pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum posts to return. | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor. Pass the nextCursor value from a previous response. | |
| status | No | Filter by status. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies sorting (newest first), returned fields, support for a status filter, and cursor pagination. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior and output.
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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and key features. Every word adds value without 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's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema) and the readOnly annotation, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, sorting, filtering, and pagination. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'status filter' and 'cursor pagination' but these are already captured in the schema parameter descriptions. No significant extra meaning is added beyond the structured schema.
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 what the tool does: it lists the post queue (scheduled posts) sorted newest first, with specific fields like caption preview, targets, status, and failure reason. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sprkly_get_post_status (single post) and sprkly_list_profiles (accounts).
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 provides clear context that this tool shows the post queue, implying use for viewing scheduled posts. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5 but is still informative.
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.