search-social-draftsSearches authorized social drafts and returns bounded content, status, platform, source-review, and approval metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of drafts to return. | |
| query | No | Draft content, platform, status, or ID. | |
| status | No | Draft approval state. | |
| platform | No | Social platform. | |
| review_id | No | Optional source review ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'authorized' (implying permission constraints) and 'bounded content' (possibly indicating truncation or a limit), which is useful extra context. However, it does not elaborate on pagination, ordering, or how the bounded behavior is controlled, so it only partially extends beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently states the action and return fields. However, the term 'bounded' is vague and could be clarified, slightly reducing the score from 5.
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?
The tool has 5 optional parameters, enums, and no output schema, so the description carries some burden. It lists the return fields, which aids the agent in understanding results, but leaves ambiguities like what 'bounded content' means, how to combine query parameters, and whether results are paginated. Given that the schema covers parameter details, the description is adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (limit, query, status, platform, review_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'source-review' and 'approval', which map to review_id and status, but does not clarify the 'bounded' term or how the parameters interact. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 verb 'Searches' and the resource 'authorized social drafts', and enumerates the return fields ('bounded content, status, platform, source-review, and approval metadata'). This distinguishes it from generic search tools and from 'preview-social-draft' which focuses on a single draft, though it does not explicitly reference the sibling. It is specific and not a tautology, hence a 4.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use this to find drafts, use preview-social-draft to view a specific draft' or mention any exclusions. The only usage context is implicit from the name, which is insufficient for differentiation among many search tools.
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.