list_postsList posts in the workspace with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum posts to return. Defaults to 20 and is capped at 50. | |
| runId | No | ||
| offset | No | Offset for paging through results. | |
| status | No | e.g. scheduled, published, action_required, failed, canceled. | |
| account | No | Account handle filter. | |
| provider | No | ||
| campaignId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"e.g. scheduled, published, failed, canceled."New value: +"e.g. scheduled, published, action_required, failed, canceled."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum posts to return. Defaults to 20 and is capped at 50."Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Offset for paging through results.",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations and schema — no pagination behavior, result ordering, or default/cap behavior (which lives only in the limit param).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It earns its place but is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter tool, leaving useful space unused.
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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema and 43% of parameters undocumented, the description leaves significant gaps: what fields a returned post has, how filters combine, and what the three undocumented filter params do. Annotations cover safety but not the operational context an agent needs.
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 coverage is only 57%: limit, offset, status, and account are documented in the schema, but runId, provider, and campaignId have no descriptions anywhere. The description says 'optional filters' generically and does not compensate for these undocumented parameters.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('posts') with scope ('in the workspace'), which distinguishes it from the singular get_post sibling. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from other list_* tools or explain what a 'post' covers.
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 phrase 'with optional filters' hints at filtering capability but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the get_post alternative for single-record retrieval, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.
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.