Create a text or link post on Moltbook, set its title, content, or URL, and choose a submolt that defaults to general.
Create a new post on Moltbook. Can be text or a link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | URL if it is a link post | |
| title | Yes | Title of the post | |
| content | No | Text content of the post | |
| submolt | No | Submolt (community) to post in. Defaults to general. | general |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates that posts can be text or link. It does not say whether posting requires registration, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more: it omits whether url and content are mutually exclusive, what the response returns, and what identifies the created post. The description is too thin for a 4-parameter write operation.
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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (title, content, url, submolt with its default) are already documented. The description's text/link framing loosely maps to the content/url split but adds no binding rules such as mutual exclusivity.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new post on Moltbook') and adds the two post modes (text or link). This separates it from moltbook_comment, though it does not name siblings explicitly.
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?
No indication of when to choose this over moltbook_comment or other write tools, no prerequisites or auth requirements, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.