Skip to main content
Glama

List content

list_content
Read-onlyIdempotent

[read-only] Lists content items (drafts), newest first. Each carries postState ("posted" / "scheduled" / null) and posts[] (up to 5): where it went out, per platform, with status, live URL and failure reason. (Wraps GET /api/v2/content.)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
brandIdNoA brand id from GET /api/v2/brands. Omitted: the key's brand (brand-bound key) or the owner's active brand.
includeArchivedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: newest-first ordering and the exact response shape (postState values, posts[] capped at 5 with per-platform status, live URL and failure reason).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the operation and ordering front-loaded, followed by the most decision-relevant return details. The parenthetical endpoint note is minor but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return-value contract, which is the main thing an agent needs. However, for a 3-parameter tool it leaves limit and includeArchived entirely unexplained, so it is not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%: brandId has a description with fallback semantics, but limit and includeArchived are undocumented in the schema, and the description never mentions limit, brandId, includeArchived, defaults, or the 200 max. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists content items (drafts), newest first') and even describes the return shape. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_content or the other list_* tools, but the scope (drafts, ordered) is clear enough to select on.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'drafts' framing, and 'newest first' hints at intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_content or other listing endpoints and no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources