Skip to main content
Glama

ContentIn — LinkedIn Ghostwriter

by io.contentin
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List ContentIn posts

list_posts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the posts on this ContentIn profile — drafts, scheduled, published and ideas. Use this to find a post's id before scheduling, publishing, repurposing or pulling analytics for it, and to answer questions about what the user has written or has queued up. Returns a 280-character excerpt of each post, never the full body.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoISO-8601 date. Only posts created on or before this.
fromNoISO-8601 date. Only posts created on or after this.
limitNoHow many posts to return (1-50, default 20).
searchNoFree-text match against the post body and title.
statusNoFilter by post status. Omit for all statuses. 'draft' = written but not queued, 'scheduled' = queued for automatic publishing, 'posted' = already live on LinkedIn, 'planned' = a slot the ContentIn week planner has reserved (it holds a brief, not a finished post — it CANNOT be scheduled or published until the user turns it into a draft in ContentIn).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by post status. Omit for all statuses. 'draft' = written but not queued, 'scheduled' = queued for automatic publishing, 'posted' = already live on LinkedIn."New value: +"Filter by post status. Omit for all statuses. 'draft' = written but not queued, 'scheduled' = queued for automatic publishing, 'posted' = already live on LinkedIn, 'planned' = a slot the ContentIn week planner has reserved (it holds a brief, not a finished post — it CANNOT be scheduled or published until the user turns it into a draft in ContentIn)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / items / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "idea",
-  "suggestion",
-  "draft",
-  "scheduled",
-  "posted",
-  "declined"
-]New value: +[
+  "idea",
+  "suggestion",
+  "planned",
+  "draft",
+  "scheduled",
+  "posted",
+  "declined"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by disclosing that the tool returns only a 280-character excerpt of each post and never the full body. This is material behavioral information an agent needs to set user expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences each earn their place: the first defines scope, the second states use cases, and the third clarifies an important limitation (excerpt, never full body). The key calling information is front-loaded.

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?

With five optional parameters, no output schema, and only read-only annotations, the description covers the main call intent, the return shape, and the common use cases. It does not mention sorting or pagination details, but the limit parameter and schema descriptions fill most practical gaps.

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 thorough descriptions for all five parameters, including the status enum meanings CircleCI. The description adds a small amount of context by mentioning statuses like drafts and scheduled posts, but it does not meaningfully expand on parameter behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('List the posts on this ContentIn profile') and enumerates the statuses covered (drafts, scheduled, published, ideas). It also explains why an agent would call it, which strongly differentiates it from related actions like scheduling or publishing.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to find a post's ID before scheduling, publishing, repurposing, or pulling analytics, and to answer user questions about their posts. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools, but the intended contexts are clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

All ContentIn — LinkedIn Ghostwriter 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