get_settingsGet your Notipo account configuration: which services are connected (Notion, WordPress), current plan, feature settings, and trigger statuses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | FREE | TRIAL | PRO | |
| wpSeoPlugin | Yes | RANK_MATH | YOAST | SEOPRESS | AIOSEO | |
| codeHighlighter | Yes | ||
| notionConnected | Yes | ||
| wordpressConnected | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) fully disclose the tool's side effects. The description is consistent with these annotations and adds no contradictory information. For a simple read operation, this meets the transparency bar.
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?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that lists all relevant aspects without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get your Notipo account configuration') and then enumerates specifics, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, read-only), the description fully covers what the user can expect: the type of data returned (settings related to services, plan, features, triggers). No additional context is needed for a getter of this nature.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema provides no information to augment. The description does not need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on the return value. This dimension is trivially satisfied.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving account configuration. It specifies the scope (services, plan, features, triggers) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job or get_post by focusing on settings.
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?
While no explicit 'when to use' is provided, the name and description make it obvious that this is the tool for retrieving account settings. The lack of parameters and the readOnly annotation further clarify usage, but explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other getters would be slightly more helpful.
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 clearly distinct resources and actions, separating creation, updates, deletions, list/get operations, and job monitoring. The main ambiguity is between direct_publish and publish_post, since both involve publishing, though their descriptions clarify creation vs. making a draft live.
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: create_post, get_post, list_posts, update_post, delete_post, publish_post, list_categories, list_tags. The exceptions are direct_publish and sync_now, which deviate from the pattern but remain understandable.
13 tools is well-scoped for a blogging and sync workflow covering posts, publishing, jobs, categories, tags, and settings. Each tool addresses a distinct part of the pipeline without redundancy or excessive granularity.
The surface covers the core post lifecycle, publishing jobs, sync triggers, WordPress metadata, and settings. The only notable gap is that direct_publish creates a WordPress post outside of Notion, while update_post explicitly syncs back from Notion, so updating a direct-published post may not be covered.