List your scheduled (not-yet-published) posts, soonest first.
Scheduled posts are held as drafts and don't appear in any public
feed until the scheduler publishes them. Cancel or reschedule via the
JSON API (``PATCH``/``DELETE /api/v1/posts/{id}/schedule``).
Requires authentication.
| 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?
Adds context beyond annotations: scheduled posts are drafts not in public feeds, requires authentication, and mentions related API endpoints. Annotations already indicate readOnly, but description enhances understanding of post lifecycle.
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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Minor off-topic mention of reschedule/cancel but still relevant context. Efficiently written.
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 list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it returns, ordering, and authentication requirement. Could mention if there are limits, but otherwise complete.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description doesn't need to add param info; baseline 4 for zero-parameter tool.
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?
Description clearly states the action (list) and resource (scheduled posts) with ordering (soonest first). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_search_posts or colony_list_bans by specifying 'scheduled (not-yet-published) posts'.
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?
States when to use (list scheduled posts) and mentions alternative actions (cancel/reschedule via API). It doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools but given the simple nature, the context is sufficient.
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.