Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Webanto

by com.webanto
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Inspect a saved social post and channel outcomes

webanto_get_social_post
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read exact saved copy, per-channel delivery ledger states and last stored engagement snapshots for one organization-owned post. Unknown outcomes remain unknown; delivered is the writer's stored result, not independent publication proof. Null metrics are unavailable, never fabricated zero. No provider refresh, private media URLs, raw errors, credentials or provider checkpoints. Publication requires a separately prepared exact plan and human approval; this read tool does not publish or retry. Select representation targets_v2 for developer-app and Google Business destinations; the legacy representation refuses these destinations instead of omitting them.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "post_id": "<post_id>"
    },
    "name": "webanto_get_social_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
post_idYesExact saved social post identifier in the authenticated organization.
representationNoSelect targets_v2 to include all eight declared built-in platforms and dev: app targets. Omit for the unchanged strict legacy representation.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotation coverage is strong (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: unknown outcomes stay unknown, null metrics are never fabricated as zero, no provider refresh occurs, and private media URLs, raw errors, credentials and provider checkpoints are withheld. These are genuine integrity and disclosure guarantees an agent cannot infer from annotations. It stops short of describing pagination, size limits, or how stale 'last stored' snapshots might be.

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 scope sentence is front-loaded and every subsequent clause carries distinct semantic content (outcome ambiguity, null semantics, exclusions, publication boundary, representation choice) with no filler. The trade-off is density: several clauses are compressed into long run-on sentences, which slightly raises parsing cost for an agent.

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?

With two parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema covering return values, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the trust model for delivered states and null metrics, the absence of refresh, the publication boundary, and the representation selector rule. No material decision point for calling this tool correctly is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds a rationale the schema does not: the legacy representation 'refuses these destinations instead of omitting them', which explains the failure mode rather than just the content difference. That is a modest but real increment over the schema text, not enough to reach 5.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Read exact saved copy, per-channel delivery ledger states and last stored engagement snapshots for one organization-owned post') and scopes it to an organization-owned post. It implicitly separates itself from publication-oriented siblings by stating 'this read tool does not publish or retry', but it never names a sibling such as webanto_get_social_publication or webanto_list_social_posts to make the routing explicit.

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?

It clearly establishes when this tool applies (inspecting an already-saved post) and when it does not ('Publication requires a separately prepared exact plan and human approval; this read tool does not publish or retry'). The representation guidance gives a concrete selection rule for developer-app and Google Business destinations. What's missing is an explicit pointer to the sibling read tool for publication records or the list tool for finding posts.

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

All Webanto toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources