Compass OS: Career

list brand posts

list_brand_posts

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the user's LinkedIn writing in Brand studio: how many drafts, scheduled and published pieces there are, the next scheduled one, the newest published ones, and up to five drafts with their full text, each by topic and kind. Use it to find a draft by its topic before edit_draft; create_draft saves a new one, and get_rewind writes a caption from the wins log. Read-only: Compass OS never posts to LinkedIn.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_brand_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	The answer, or what was done, in plain words for the user: the same text as content
`undo`	No	On a saved write: its undo handle, for undo within 24 hours
`widget`	No	The card the host draws with it, e.g. "pipeline"; "confirm" means a write waits for the user's Yes and nothing is saved yet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is largely met; the description still adds context by scoping the read-only guarantee to LinkedIn ('Compass OS never posts to LinkedIn') and disclosing the five-draft cap on returned full text. It does not discuss ordering or pagination, but for a zero-parameter read tool that is a minor omission.

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?

Front-loads the verb and the returned payload in the first sentence, then routing, then safety. It is dense but every clause carries information; the long enumeration of return items is somewhat list-like and could be tightened given an output schema already 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining gaps: what the listing contains, the cap on drafts, when to reach for it instead of siblings, and the read-only guarantee. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends its words on scope and return content instead.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly what comes back: counts of drafts/scheduled/published, the next scheduled piece, newest published pieces, and up to five drafts with full text, each tagged by topic and kind. An agent can distinguish this from create_draft or get_rewind without opening any schema.

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?

States the operative use case (find a draft by topic before edit_draft) and names the alternatives with their roles (create_draft saves a new one, get_rewind writes a caption from the wins log). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or noting the hard limit of five drafts as a selection reason, so it falls just shy of fully prescriptive routing.

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

All Compass OS: Career tools Inspect

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

Need Help?