list_channel_setsList saved channel sets — named channel groupings for one-click multi-channel targeting. Returns id, name, and channelIds for each set, ordered by name. Use this when the user wants their saved channel groups (channel sets).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds further behavioral detail by specifying the returned fields and that results are ordered by name, which goes beyond the structured 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?
The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the core action, defines the resource type, lists the return payload, and closes with a direct usage statement. Every sentence 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?
For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the resource concept, output contents, ordering, and when to use it. The annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists, but the return fields are explicitly stated, so the agent has enough context to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameter behavior; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing for invocation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List saved channel sets', and clarifies what they are ('named channel groupings for one-click multi-channel targeting'). It also specifies the return fields and ordering, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from related list operations like list_channels.
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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use this when the user wants their saved channel groups'. It doesn't name alternative tools for contrast, but for a simple zero-parameter read-only list, this clear when-to-use guidance 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.
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.