get_postsRead a campaign's discovered posts with their drafted replies. Free. Use after generate_posts to inspect what was found, then review_posts / regenerate_replies to refine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 50 | |
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| include_replies | No | Default true |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety; description reinforces with 'Read' and adds that it is 'Free'. It does not disclose return format or pagination behavior, but these are less critical given the annotation coverage.
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?
Description is concise two-sentence summary that front-loads the object of the operation and immediately supplies workflow context. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.
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 tool, the description plus schema is mostly usable, but with no output schema and low parameter documentation, it leaves the agent to infer details about status filtering, pagination, and exactly what the response contains. It 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 only 40%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. It implies campaign_id ('a campaign's') and posts, but limit, offset, status, and include_replies are not explained beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states a read operation on 'a campaign's discovered posts with their drafted replies', making the resource and purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings by naming generate_posts, review_posts, and regenerate_replies in a workflow, so an agent can immediately see this is the inspection step.
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?
Explicit guidance says to use this after generate_posts and before review_posts/regenerate_replies. This establishes a clear place in the workflow, though it does not mention alternatives like get_research or list_campaigns when campaign context is unclear.
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.
Most tools map cleanly to a distinct resource and action: campaigns, posts, products, research, content spaces, and submissions. A few pairs are close—`create_campaign` vs `create_content_campaign` and `check_balance` vs `get_earnings`—but the detailed descriptions make the intended selection clear.
The set largely follows a consistent `verb_noun` snake_case pattern (`list_campaigns`, `generate_posts`, `update_campaign`, `submit_participation`). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: `credit_history` lacks a verb, and `create_campaign` reads as generic next to the more specific `create_content_campaign`.
30 tools is high and makes the server feel heavy, but the domain genuinely spans products, credits, campaigns, research, post discovery, content spaces, boosts, and participation rewards. The breadth mostly earns the count, though it sits on the wrong side of the typical 3–15 range.
The core end-to-end workflow is covered: create and configure campaigns, discover and refine posts, run research, find opportunities, submit work, and measure results. Gaps exist but are minor for the central purpose—product listings can’t be updated or deleted, and delegates can be added but not removed.