See all scheduled posts and drafts in your social media pipeline, using optional status filters to focus on pending, draft, done, or failed items.
List upcoming scheduled posts and drafts in the queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of posts to return (default 20, max 100). | |
| status | No | Filter by post status. Omit to return all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'list ... in the queue', but does not clarify the return format, ordering, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or the fact that the status filter can include non-upcoming entries like 'done' and 'failed'. This is a minor misdirection as 'upcoming' suggests only pending/draft.
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, short sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative without significant added length.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate but lacks context about the difference between scheduled posts and drafts, and does not mention that it can return done/failed posts as well. It also does not integrate with sibling tool context.
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?
Both parameters (limit, status) are fully described in the schema, so the description adds no extra meaning. The baseline score is 3 as schema coverage is 100%.
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 the action 'list' and the resource 'upcoming scheduled posts and drafts', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post or update_post. It is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_templates or update_post. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or recommended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.