list_channelsList all connected social media channels (X/Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, TikTok, etc.). Returns channel ID, platform, account name, and token status. Use this when the user wants to see which social accounts are connected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | No | Filter by active status. Defaults to true (only active channels). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-field context (token status), but it claims 'all connected' channels while the active parameter defaults to true, meaning only active channels are returned unless explicitly filtered. This behavioral nuance is not disclosed in the description.
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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds return fields and 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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and use case. The only notable gap is the unmentioned default active filtering, but the schema supplies that information.
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 description coverage is 100% and the active parameter is already well-documented with its default and meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all connected social media channels' and enumerates supported platforms. It also specifies the returned fields (channel ID, platform, account name, token status), making the tool's scope evident. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling view_channels, so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user wants to see which social accounts are connected.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention when to use an alternative or provide exclusions.
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.