List all apps with post counts. Use to discover which apps are active on the shared social graph (peck.to, treechat, peck.agents, peck.ink, etc). Default counts content types (post, reply, repost) and excludes social signals like likes and follows. Cached 60s.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Only count this single type (e.g. "post" for root posts only). | |
| types | No | Comma-separated list of types to include (e.g. "post,reply"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: default counting includes post, reply, and repost, excludes social signals like likes and follows, and results are cached for 60 seconds. It stops short of describing pagination or exact return format, but for a simple read-only list tool the disclosed behavior is solid.
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?
Three tight sentences with no filler: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, default behavior, and caching. Every sentence adds meaningful 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?
For a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: what it lists, why to use it, default counting scope, and caching. It does not detail the response shape beyond "apps with post counts," but that is likely sufficient for this simple list operation.
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 input schema already describes the two parameters with 100% coverage, including examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about default counting behavior when no parameters are supplied, but it does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List all apps with post counts." It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on app-level discovery on the shared social graph, naming concrete app examples. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and differentiates it from feed, stats, and user-level tools.
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 gives a clear use case: "Use to discover which apps are active on the shared social graph." It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the intended scenario is well conveyed and enough to guide an agent toward appropriate selection.
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.