Reposts an existing story on behalf of a managed business account, enabling MCP clients to publish it to a connected business profile for a defined active period.
Repost a story on behalf of a managed business account (v9.3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from_chat_id | Yes | ||
| active_period | Yes | ||
| from_story_id | Yes | ||
| protect_content | No | ||
| post_to_chat_page | No | ||
| business_connection_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the business-account acting model, but says nothing about what happens to the reposted story after the required active_period elapses, whether protect_content changes behavior, or what post_to_chat_page does to visibility.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally sound. The trailing '(v9.3)' version tag is noise that consumes attention without helping an agent call the tool.
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?
For a six-parameter mutation with zero schema documentation and no output schema, one sentence is far too thin. An agent would have to guess at the meaning of the required active_period and the two boolean flags before calling.
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 0% across six parameters, four of them required, so the description must compensate and does not. Nothing explains from_chat_id vs from_story_id, the units/meaning of the required active_period, or the effect of protect_content and post_to_chat_page.
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 (repost) and resource (story) plus the acting scope, 'on behalf of a managed business account'. An agent can distinguish it from post_story/edit_story, though it never names those 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?
The phrase 'on behalf of a managed business account' implies the prerequisite of an existing business connection and a source story, which is implicit when-to-use guidance. It never states when to choose repost_story over post_story or how it relates to the original story's lifetime.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.