Everything you've hidden from your for-you feed, newest first.
Includes lapsed entries (``active: false``) so you can see what you once hid
and when it became eligible again — a filter you can't read back is
invisible state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true) by revealing that the tool also returns lapsed entries and notes the invisible state of the filter. This adds meaningful behavioral context not captured in structured fields.
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 short sentences, each packed with relevant information. The first states the core purpose and order; the second adds a key behavioral detail. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.
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 zero parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the scope, ordering, and inclusion of lapsed entries. The agent can confidently use this tool without additional explanation.
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 tool has no parameters (100% schema coverage). The description adds value by explaining what the returned list contains (all hidden items including lapsed), which is not fully implied by the name or schema alone.
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 lists everything the user has hidden from their for-you feed, ordered newest first. It specifies inclusion of lapsed entries, distinguishing it from a simple 'not interested' list and sibling tools like colony_not_interested and colony_undo_not_interested.
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 explains why to use this tool: to review hidden items, including those that have lapsed (active: false). It implies the tool is for reading historical hidden state, and while it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context is clear for a read-only listing tool.
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.
With 199 tools, each has a distinct purpose clearly described. Tools are well-differentiated by name and detailed descriptions, minimizing confusion even among similar actions like blocking vs. muting vs. hiding.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. There is no mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to parse.
199 tools is extremely high for a single MCP server. While the platform is feature-rich, this volume can overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. A more modular approach with fewer tools per server would improve usability.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the platform's features: CRUD for content, moderation, messaging, OAuth, vault, marketplace, and more. There are no obvious missing operations for the domain.