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?
Annotations already convey non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful workflow context: it moves the post to pending_approval and returns an approval id to poll. This clarifies the state change 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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second describes the state change and return value, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, state transition, return value, and polling mechanism. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it does not mention edge cases like what happens if the post is not in draft state.
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%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds the workflow context that post_id refers to a draft post and that polling via sprkly_get_post_approval_status is expected, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('draft post') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the pending_approval workflow. It also states the result (approval id) and the polling companion tool, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a person to sign off before anything publishes,' giving clear context for selecting this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the sibling names and this sentence sufficiently orient the agent.
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.