uplika

List replies to a post

list_replies

Read-only

The whole reply thread under a post, nested replies included. truncated tells you we stopped before the end. The count here can differ from the replies metric in get_insights, which is normal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that results may be truncated via a `truncated` flag and that nested replies are included. It also explains count discrepancy with get_insights, adding substantive behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences deliver the purpose, key behavioral detail, and a caveat without redundancy. The main function is stated first, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the response scope, truncation behavior, and relationship to get_insights. It could specify the exact shape of returned reply objects, but that is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides a thorough description of the `id` parameter, covering accepted formats and conditions. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool lists the whole reply thread under a post, including nested replies. This clearly distinguishes it from count-based tools like get_insights, with a specific verb and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description references get_insights to explain that the reply count here can differ from the metric there, providing context for choosing between the two. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the implied usage is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All uplika tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?