VarynForge

List destinations

list_destinations

Read-only

List the project's destinations — where the operator publishes (website, youtube_channel, tiktok, instagram, x, linkedin, local_business). Destination type ids are the format labels lint_draft stores drafts under. Each row carries its capabilities so you never cross-reference other tools: briefChannel is the brief/lint channel the type maps onto (null for open slots), verifiable says lint_draft can grade drafts for it, publishable says it is live and its published URLs can be recorded, and publishVia names the recording tool (mark_article_published for article-channel destinations, register_derived_asset for social/video; null while planned). An empty list means the operator has not configured destinations — add one with add_destination, or fall back to the brief channel name as the lint_draft format label.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description goes beyond by disclosing the structure of rows (briefChannel, verifiable, publishable, publishVia) and their semantics, clarifying that it never requires cross-referencing other tools. This is valuable behavioral insight beyond the annotation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but structured. It front-loads the core purpose and enumerations, then details field semantics. It could be slightly more concise (the field explanations are somewhat verbose), but every sentence adds practical value and no filler exists.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations beyond read-only), the description is robustly complete. It covers purpose, response structure, edge cases (empty list), and integration with other tools (publishVia, lint_draft). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% — the description never mentions projectId, which is the only required parameter. With one simple UUID parameter and a rich description of the response semantics, the gap is minor but still present. The description compensates well for the output but not for the input parameter.

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 clearly states the tool lists project destinations for publishing, enumerates specific types (website, youtube_channel, tiktok, etc.), and is distinguishable from siblings like add_destination. The verb-resource pair 'list destinations' is precise and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to see destinations, check capabilities) and what to do when returning an empty list (add a destination or fall back to brief channel name). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., list_article_suggestions), though the domain difference is implicit. The empty-list handling is a strong usage cue.

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

All VarynForge 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but a few pairs could confuse an agent: add_article_suggestion vs create_article_suggestion_with_input, and get_article_brief vs download_brief_markdown vs get_write_handoff all deal with brief content. The detailed descriptions help disambiguate, but the overlap is real.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (create_project, list_opportunities, generate_article_brief, lint_draft). There is no mixing of camelCase, acronyms, or vague verbs, making the naming predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

50 tools is excessive for an MCP server, even for a broad platform like content operations. While the scope is large, this many tools will overwhelm agents and increase latency and context cost. Most practical servers are well under 25.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full content lifecycle: project creation, research, opportunity clustering, content planning, briefs, drafting, linting, publishing, and reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_project, no remove_destination, no direct analytics beyond distributions), but they are workarounds or handled in the web UI.

Resources

Need Help?