SuperPost

Get content context

get_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads account-scoped context for a content variant, idea, post, assistant thread, publication, schedule, or exact source capture. A source_capture returns its exact saved text and verified provenance, including manual captures outside the bounded initial references; Google-derived or unverified source content is withheld. A post returns full shared text and platform variants only when its source provenance is verified as safe; Google-derived or unverified content is withheld. Thread and publication context is metadata-only. Idea context includes the saved assistantBrief when present and the full generationReceipt when available. assistantBrief is saved writing guidance for a future post and is separate from the thesis, conclusion, and post body. The receipt may contain model name, platform/cadence selection, concise explanation, explanation-cited evidence IDs, context evidence, and context status/hash; fields absent from the receipt were not saved and must not be inferred. MCP-authored receipts preserve the submitted user-facing generation note and omit model, platform selection, or evidence when the tool did not provide them. Cited evidence IDs are distinct from the broader providedEvidence list. The explanation is a saved rationale, not private chain of thought; older ideas may have no receipt.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`kind`	Yes	source_capture identifies an exact source capture, including manual captures, whose saved text and provenance are available in account-scoped context.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`object`	Yes
`visible`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: Google-derived or unverified source content is withheld, thread and publication context is metadata-only, and receipt fields absent from storage must not be inferred. These are real operational constraints on interpreting the response that the annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded and each sentence is substantive, but the description runs long for a two-parameter getter and devotes most of its bulk to fine-grained receipt-field minutiae. The withholding rule is restated in two separate sentences (source_capture and post), which is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so the description plausibly over-explains return values — yet the details it adds are policy-level (what gets withheld, what a receipt can and cannot contain) rather than shape-level, which the schema cannot express. What is missing is cross-tool routing guidance, given the many overlapping siblings.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50% — the `id` parameter has no schema description — but the description compensates by explaining what each `kind` value resolves to (exact saved text for source_capture, full shared text for posts when provenance is safe, metadata-only for thread/publication). The implicit meaning of `id` as the identifier of the given kind is left to inference, which keeps this from a 5.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Reads account-scoped context" for a precisely enumerated set of entity kinds, then immediately differentiates the behavior per kind. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling list_* and preview_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

The enumerated kinds imply which entities this tool serves, and the per-kind return behavior helps an agent pick the right `kind`. However, it never states when a caller should prefer this over siblings like preview_content_bundle or list_threads, nor any prerequisite or exclusions, so routing guidance remains inferential.

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

All SuperPost tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?