get_v2_post_remix_feedv2 / Post Remix Feed Group: v2 / Post. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | You can get subsequent results by entering the `cursor` value taken from the first response. | |
| post_id | No | Post ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses only a billing and grouping label, not whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is a major transparency gap for a feed tool.
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 text is extremely short but mostly repeats the title and adds non-functional metadata. 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' is useful, but the rest is structural labeling. The body under-specifies the tool rather than being efficiently informative.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a simple two-parameter schema, the description should explain what a 'post remix feed' is, what kind of data is returned, and how it relates to sibling feed tools. It does none of this, leaving important missing context for an AI agent.
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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with meaningful descriptions: cursor explains how to get additional results, and post_id identifies the target post. The description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema already provides sufficient semantic coverage, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 is essentially a restatement of the title: 'v2 / Post Remix Feed Group: v2 / Post.' It provides no verb, no operation explanation, and no scope beyond the already-visible name. It does not meaningfully clarify what the tool actually gets or does.
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 given for when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_v2_feed or get_v2_post_details_and_replies. The description only mentions billing and grouping, so the agent is left without context for selecting between feeds or understanding expected use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.