List all reports in the workspace with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Optional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas. | |
| cursor | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| brand_id | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only 'with pagination,' which is a useful behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose scope limitations, filtering behavior, or that results are an array, so it adds limited context beyond the structured hints.
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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and 'with pagination' is a concise addition. It earns its place as an efficient summary.
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?
With 6 optional parameters, a nested query object, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not clarify how brand_id or query affect results, what fields are returned, or whether workspace_id is needed for scoping. The absence of any explanation about the return shape or filtering options leaves significant gaps for an agent selecting this tool.
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 description coverage is only 33% (query and workspace_id are described in schema). The tool description adds no parameter details; it only mentions pagination generically. Essential parameters like limit, cursor, offset, and brand_id are left without any explanatory context in the description, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List all reports in the workspace with pagination.' It distinguishes from single-report retrieval (aidelly_get_report) and report-link/schedule listers by specifying 'reports' directly. Minor ambiguity: 'in the workspace' could imply a single workspace without clarifying the optional workspace_id parameter, but overall purpose is unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aidelly_get_report for a single report, or aidelly_list_report_schedules for related resources. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The name itself implies listing, but explicit guidance is absent.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in approvals and post updates. For example, aidelly_action_post_approval and aidelly_post_approvals_id_action both handle approval actions, while aidelly_get_approvals and aidelly_list_pending_approvals appear to serve similar listing functions. The proliferation of HTTP-route-style names with generic prefixes (get_approvals_id, patch_posts_id) further obscures distinctions.
The tool set mixes clean verb_noun names (create_post, list_posts) with HTTP-method-plus-path names (get_approvals_id, patch_posts_id, post_analytics_insights). There is no consistent pattern, and 'post' as a verb collides with the content post noun, creating confusion. The inconsistent conventions make it hard to predict tool names.
With 124 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP server scope and the calibration threshold (50+ is extreme). Even for a comprehensive platform API, such a large surface overwhelms agents and makes selection impractical. The count is a severe mismatch for a usable MCP tool set.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering CRUD for posts, drafts, scheduled posts, tasks, reports, webhooks, workspaces, e-commerce stores, and many more. Advanced features like approvals, repurpose jobs, and content automations are also represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit delete for regular posts, only cancel), but the domain is well covered overall.