List the caller's moderation queues: the boards they moderate, pending board-post delete requests and open post reports (up to 50 each). Pass boardSlug to scope to one board (admins may scope to any board); without it the queues aggregate across all the caller's board seats. An admin without seats sees empty queues, same as the web moderation page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardSlug | No | Optional board slug to scope the queues |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful traits: per-queue caps of 50 items, admin-wide scoping privileges, and the empty-queue edge case matching the web moderation page. It stops short of stating explicit auth/permission requirements or the return shape, but the behavioral context is above average for an unannotated read 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?
Three sentences that are front-loaded and each earns its place: purpose and contents first, then the scoping parameter, then the edge case. No filler or repetition of the schema.
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 a single optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers queue contents, item caps, scoping behavior, and the admin edge case well. The only mild gap is that it does not describe authentication requirements explicitly, but an agent has enough 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description goes further by explaining the semantics of omitting boardSlug (aggregation across all seats) and the admin override, which the schema does not convey. This is meaningfully more than the schema's terse 'Optional board slug to scope the queues'.
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 specific verb (List) and resource (the caller's moderation queues) and enumerates exactly what those queues contain: moderated boards, pending delete requests, and open post reports. It is clearly distinguishable from the action siblings like mod_resolve_report and mod_decide_delete_request, which act on the items this tool surfaces.
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?
Explains the scoping decision explicitly: pass boardSlug to scope to one board (admins may scope to any board), otherwise queues aggregate across all board seats. It gives the edge case of an admin without seats seeing empty queues. It does not name an alternative tool, but the context is clear.
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.
