Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TimeToPost MCP server

TimeToPost MCP server

by MelMayssonOwen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List source ingests

list_sources
Read-onlyIdempotent

List recent source ingests with status, planned platforms, draft counts, and per-item extraction results. Read-only operation.

Instructions

List this org's recent source ingests (newest first) with status, planned platforms, draft counts and per-item extraction results. Read-only. CAPABILITY: read — side-effect-free.

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_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing newest-first ordering and the specific return content (status, platforms, draft counts, extraction results). It redundantly restates read-only, but that does not contradict annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return details. The read-only note is redundant given annotations but does not waste significant space. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete for a simple read-only list tool. It explains the scope (this org), ordering (newest first), and the full set of returned fields, leaving no significant unanswered questions.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools get a baseline of 4; there are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'source ingests', with details on ordering and return fields (status, planned platforms, draft counts, per-item extraction results). This differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_integrations and list_posts.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Context is clear: it's for viewing the org's recent source ingests, which is distinct from integrations, posts, or drafts. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools