Get publish capabilities and provider rules for connected accounts: what media is allowed, text limits, and whether publishing is currently possible. Pass accountId for one account, or provider to filter, or neither for all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Optional provider filter. | |
| accountId | No | Optional account id. |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the nature of the return data (media allowances, text limits, publishing status) and the filtering behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or mention permissions, the verb 'Get' implies non-mutating access, making this sufficiently transparent for a simple read operation.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence efficiently covers parameter usage. No redundancy or excessive detail.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately covers return content (media, text limits, publishability) and parameter options. For a tool with two optional parameters, this is complete and self-contained, requiring no additional context to invoke correctly.
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 already provides descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the combinational semantics: accountId and provider are optional, can be used alone or together? Actually says 'or' implying exclusive, and 'neither' for all. This clarifies how the parameters interact beyond their individual descriptions.
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 retrieves publish capabilities and provider rules for connected accounts, listing specific aspects (media, text limits, publishability). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_analytics and get_post by focusing on capability checks rather than usage or content retrieval.
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?
Provides clear instruction on parameter usage: passing accountId for one account, provider to filter, or neither for all. This gives strong contextual guidance, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few are close: delete_instagram_comment vs hide_instagram_comment overlap (though one is preferred), and get_analytics overlaps with Instagram-specific analytics tools. Overall, the boundaries are generally clear, with only minor potential confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, connect_account, upload_asset, cancel_post). There are no deviations in style or grammar, making the naming highly predictable.
With 31 tools, this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the broad multi-provider social media domain justifies some breadth, the sheer number makes the surface heavy and potentially overwhelming, pushing the score down.
The tool set covers core workflows well: account connection, scheduling/publishing, post management, analytics, Instagram-specific engagement (comments, messages), asset upload, and workspace health/usage. Minor gaps include no explicit disconnect_account or delete_post, but these are edge cases; the domain is largely covered.
