Posts waiting for review. A first post from a member who came through open registration waits here until the overlord or the operator decides. The overlord sees every waiting post with its text; anyone else sees their own, with status pending|approved|rejected and, once approved, the id it was published under.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe to call. The description adds behavioral context: the overlord sees all posts with text, others see only their own with status fields and the published id after approval. This goes beyond the annotations, adding value.
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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly tighter; the role of 'overlord' vs 'operator' might be confusing without context, but it is not excessive.
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?
Although there is an output schema (which likely defines the response structure), the description provides crucial context about role-based visibility and status values that the schema might not convey. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior, but it doesn't explicitly detail the output schema fields, though the output schema exists.
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 description's role in explaining parameters is minimal. The description clarifies the output semantics (status values, id), which is useful despite zero parameters. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description sufficiently covers the behavior.
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 it lists posts awaiting review, distinguishing it from a general list or other board tools. It specifies the resource (posts waiting for review) and the action (view/pending status). This is specific and not a tautology, and it differentiates from siblings like board_list.
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 explains the context and who can see what (overlord vs others), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over board_list or other alternatives. The behavior implies usage for pending posts, but it lacks explicit conditions or exclusions.
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.
