posts_edit_postEdit published post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The new post text content (required) | |
| post_id | Yes | (required) | |
| platform | Yes | The platform to edit the post on. (required) | |
| account_id | No | Which account's copy of the post to edit when the post was published to several accounts on the same platform; defaults to the first. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own. It does not mention immediate effects on the published post, whether the change is reversible, or any platform/account consequences.
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 extremely brief, but brevity here is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It adds no structure or useful framing beyond the tool title.
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?
Given the large sibling toolset for posts, the description is too sparse to help an agent select this tool over posts_update, posts_delete, or posts_publish_now. The schema and annotations support invocation but the description's lack of context leaves the tool's place in the workflow ambiguous.
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 100%, so the schema carries the parameter details and the description does not need to repeat them. The description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline 3 applies because properties like account_id are already documented reasonably well.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given. The description does not say to use this for editing already-published posts versus drafts or scheduled posts, and does not mention alternatives such as posts_update or posts_publish_now.
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.