get_channel_healthCheck the health status of a connected channel. Returns token validity, connection status, and any issues. Use this when the user asks whether a channel's connection/token is healthy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channelId | Yes | The channel ID to check health for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds transparency about what the call returns (token validity, connection status, issues) and the object it applies to (a connected channel). No contradiction.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return value and usage trigger. 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 one-parameter read-only health check, the description covers the trigger, the checked object, and the returned fields. No output schema exists, but the high-level return description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?
The schema already documents the single required parameter with 100% coverage. The description only restates that it applies to a connected channel, adding no extra syntax or format guidance 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?
States a precise verb ('Check') and resource ('health status of a connected channel'), then lists the exact dimensions returned (token validity, connection status, issues). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channel_options, list_channels, and get_quota_usage.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks whether a channel's connection/token is healthy,' giving the agent a clear trigger. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.
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.
Many tools occupy adjacent spaces, especially the interactive view_* tools versus their get_/list_ counterparts (view_posts/list_posts, view_analytics/get_analytics) and the multiple upload paths (upload_media, create_media_upload, multipart flow). Detailed 'Use this when' guidance helps, but an agent could still misselect between compose_post and create_post or between bulk_posts and the individual delete/retry/update operations.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout: create/get/update/delete/list for each resource (posts, media, labels, channel sets, RSS feeds, schedules), plus publish/approve/reject/retry/upload/view. No style mixing or inconsistent casing.
51 tools is an extremely large surface, crossing the calibration's 50+ extreme threshold. While the platform covers many subdomains, this volume is likely to overwhelm agents and makes the toolkit unwieldy for an MCP server.
The toolkit provides broad lifecycle coverage: CRUD for posts, media, labels, channel sets, RSS feeds, and schedules, plus publishing, approvals, retries, bulk operations, analytics, quota, channel health, and media upload variants. Minor gaps exist, such as no get_channel single-resource getter and no way to update media labels directly, but agents can work around these.