SuperPost

Get idea potential

get_idea_potential

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ranks active workspace ideas by historical potential, with optional provider, level, and used-status filters plus bounded pagination. Ideas rejected across three distinct content units, and Ideas linked to a source asset with three such rejects, are omitted from automatic discovery; one or two rejections lower their order. Scores are 0–100 ranking signals, not success probabilities. Topic/label results and similar successful ideas are measured within one platform, account, metric, and age cohort. The result includes platform evidence, confidence, semanticStatus, and sourceTruncated. An idea's own historical wins are excluded from its score. Semantic evidence can warm asynchronously; semanticStatus reports warming. This is read-only.

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": "get_idea_potential"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`used`	No
`limit`	No
`levels`	No
`offset`	No
`provider`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`totalCount`	Yes
`semanticStatus`	Yes
`sourceTruncated`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, yet the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: ideas with three rejects across distinct content units are omitted, one or two rejects lower ordering, an idea's own wins are excluded from its score, and semantic evidence warms asynchronously. That is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot express.

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?

It is front-loaded with the primary action and scoping, and the scoring caveats follow in a logical order with no filler. The closing 'This is read-only' merely repeats readOnlyHint=true and is the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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?

For a five-parameter ranking tool with an output schema, the description covers the things an agent cannot get elsewhere: exclusion rules, score interpretation, cohort comparability, and async semantic warming. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation, not tool complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does map the parameters to roles — provider, level, used-status filters plus bounded pagination. However it never explains what the five level values mean, what 'used' vs 'unused' signifies, or the default and maximum bounds, so the enum semantics remain undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Ranks active workspace ideas by historical potential' — plus the filter and pagination shape, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_ideas or get_idea_performance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is the ranking/discovery view and that filters narrow it. There is no 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance and no prerequisites, so an agent must still guess at the boundary with list_ideas.

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

All SuperPost 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?