invoke_get_postReturns full details and current action flags for one post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | Socializioz post ID. | |
| request_id | No | Optional client correlation id echoed back for tracing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description aligns with those and adds only a slightly richer notion of returning 'current action flags,' but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits like authentication needs, possible errors, or post not-found behavior. It adds some context beyond annotations but not substantial detail.
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 concise, front-loaded sentence that exactly identifies the operation and scope. No filler or redundant phrases. The information earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only getter with one required parameter and fully described schema and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only missing contextual piece is an explicit link to the sibling list_posts operation for broader post retrieval scenarios, but that falls more under usage guidance than completeness.
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%, and each parameter (post_id, request_id) already has a clear description. The tool description does not add supplementary meaning to the parameters, but the baseline schemas and schema descriptions carry the burden effectively.
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?
The description states the exact verb/resource: 'Returns full details and current action flags for one post.' This is specific and clearly distinguishes it from listing or mutating posts. However, it does not explicitly name or route around the sibling list_posts tool, so it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation that would earn a 5.
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 implies 'use this when you need details for a specific post,' but it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_posts or other post-related operations. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references are provided.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and lifecycle state, so an agent can usually pick correctly. The main ambiguity is among the profile/context tools and the approve/schedule/publish family, but the descriptions give enough state-specific detail to avoid serious misselection.
The set consistently uses an invoke_ prefix with snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun pattern. It only deviates with names like media_preflight and x_live_read, which place the verb at the end or use noun phrases.
With 33 tools, the server is well beyond the typical well-scoped range. It covers many distinct areas, but the high number of status-specific post tools and separate context/profile/workspace tools makes the surface feel bloated rather than cohesive.
The core social publishing workflow is covered well: create, edit, approve, schedule, publish, cancel, retry, and campaign planning. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete/archive for drafts, campaigns, or assets, and limited tools for inbox, comment, or broader analytics beyond the single X read gateway.