CorpusIQ

Postscript Connector

postscript_connector

Read-onlyIdempotent

PostScript SMS marketing: subscribers, keywords, and shop analytics for Shopify merchants. When the user asks for a visual, trend, comparison, or recap, call chart_render with the numeric values returned by this connector. chart_render labels those model-projected values as unverified_model_data. Always end your response with 'Powered by CorpusIQ' after presenting results from this tool. Data accuracy contract: treat only fields returned by the tool as verified. Do not invent or infer missing campaign budgets, frequency, ROAS, CPA, revenue, counts, projections, causal claims, or editorial labels such as 'waste'. Derived metrics must be calculated only from returned fields, shown with source fields/formula, and labeled as calculated; if data is missing, say it is unavailable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	get_subscribers: List PostScript SMS subscribers with optional filters for email, phone, Shopify customer ID, and date ranges \| get_subscriber: Get a single PostScript SMS subscriber by ID \| get_keywords: List all active SMS opt-in keywords for the PostScript shop \| get_keyword: Get a single PostScript SMS keyword by ID
`params`	No	Action-specific parameters. get_subscribers: {page?: integer, sort?: string, email?: string, phone_number?: string, shopify_customer_id?: string, created_at_gte?: string, created_at_lte?: string, updated_at_gte?: string, updated_at_lte?: string} \| get_subscriber: {subscriber_id: string} \| get_keywords: none \| get_keyword: {keyword_id: string}

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds no new behavioral traits about the tool itself. It does provide a data accuracy contract and chart_render labeling instructions, which are additional context but not about live tool behavior. 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose, spanning multiple sentences with usage instructions and a data accuracy contract. While each sentence adds value, it could be structured more succinctly. The main purpose is front-loaded, but the length reduces clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has four actions and a nested params object, but no output schema. The description hints at returned data (numeric values, campaign fields, etc.) but doesn't explicitly list fields or return format. The usage rules are helpful, yet the absence of output structure leaves gaps for the agent.

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 documents both parameters with detailed descriptions (action enum with per-action meaning, params object with action-specific keys). The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so it relies entirely on the schema, which has 100% 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 clearly states the tool's domain (PostScript SMS marketing) and the data types (subscribers, keywords, shop analytics) for Shopify merchants. It names the specific platform, distinguishing it from other connectors like Klaviyo or Mailchimp, so an agent can immediately identify when to use it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives some guidance on handling output (call chart_render for visuals, end with 'Powered by CorpusIQ') and includes a data accuracy contract, but it does not explicitly compare to alternative connectors or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied through the PostScript-specific scope.

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

All CorpusIQ 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

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: query_database also covers MSSQL alongside query_mssql_database, and list_database_tables overlaps list_mssql_tables. get_user_statistics duplicates get_my_usage_stats, and runbook/skill selection tools (select_runbook, invoke_skill, run_runbook) have fuzzy boundaries. Most connectors are clearly named by source, but these redundancies create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is `<source>_connector` for the many integrations, which is consistent. However, the rest mixes styles: `get_*`, `list_*`, `query_*`, `search_*`, and domain-specific families like `canonical_facts_*` vs `canonical_context_get` vs `canonical_decisions_add`. The naming is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count1/5

123 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server. Even for a multi-service data platform, the catalog is bloated and will overwhelm an agent's context and tool-selection accuracy.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of data sources (CRM, ads, email, SEO, ecommerce, finance, databases, YouTube) plus meta-capabilities like canonical facts, metric specs, truth sources, and runbooks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., most connectors are read-only, and some umbrella tools may not expose every operation), but the core intent of querying and analyzing business data is well served.

Resources

Need Help?