get_postOne publish: per-target status and the reason any target failed. For a post link you probably want open_post instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A publish id (post_…), the post's own id on the channel, or a post link (the URL you would open in a browser to see it). Links work for posts written in the channel's own app too, as long as the account is connected here. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read, and the description adds behavior beyond it by specifying what the call returns: per-target status and the reason any target failed. This clarifies that the tool is a status lookup, not a generic content fetcher. No annotation contradiction exists.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core function, and the second provides a concise disambiguation from a sibling tool. Everything 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, one-parameter tool, the description covers what the tool returns, how the id can be interpreted, and when to prefer open_post. There is no output schema, but the description gives enough return semantics to guide invocation. A small gap is not specifying what happens when no matching publish is found, but that is minor here.
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 schema already documents the id parameter thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by cautioning that post links should probably go to open_post, which meaningfully guides how the agent should choose the id value. This goes beyond merely repeating 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a single publish with per-target status and failure reasons. It also distinguishes itself from open_post by explicitly saying a post link probably warrants the sibling tool instead. This makes the tool's purpose clear despite the generic title.
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 gives one explicit routing rule: 'For a post link you probably want open_post instead.' This clearly tells the agent when not to use get_post and identifies an alternative. It does not enumerate every possible alternative, but for a one-parameter getter this is adequate.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions actively steer usage (e.g., get_post vs open_post, list_posts vs list_channel_posts). A few pairs like list_accounts vs select_channels or get_post vs open_post still require careful reading to pick the right one, but the overlap is manageable.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun (delete_post, get_insights, list_accounts, select_channels), which is consistent and predictable. A few bare-verb names like publish and reply, plus the media_* prefixed tools, break the strict pattern but still feel coherent within their subdomains.
20 tools is on the heavier side, but the breadth is justified by the server's scope: publishing, media upload workflows, reply threads, insights, quotas, and account selection. Each tool has a real job, though the four post-retrieval variants and five media tools could feel redundant at a glance.
The core lifecycle is well covered: publish, reply, delete, retry, retrieve, list, and get insights, plus multi-step media handling. Minor gaps exist, such as no general post editing, no delete-reply action beyond hiding, and limited scheduling outside YouTube, but these are not critical for the stated purpose.