List past ContentRipple repurposes, newest first: each source (type, URL, title, core message) with its variants and, for variants that were scheduled, the post's status, URL and engagement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many sources (default 20, at most 50). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the sort order ('newest first') and the nested return structure (source plus variants plus engagement for scheduled ones), which the annotations do not convey.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the colon-list packs the return shape densely without filler. It is slightly long but every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so (source fields, variant list, status/URL/engagement for scheduled posts). Combined with full schema coverage for the lone parameter and complete safety annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the default (20) and maximum (50) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the limit parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (past ContentRipple repurposes) and even enumerates the returned shape (source fields, variants, post status/URL/engagement). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_posts and list_drafts, which serve different resources.
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?
The description explains what is returned but never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as repurpose_content, list_posts, or schedule_content_variant. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues to select it.
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.