get_queue_settingsRetrieve the posting queue configuration for a profile, including slots per day, time windows, and timezone.
Posting queue configuration (slots per day, time windows, timezone).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile_username | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaning by enumerating returned queue details (slots, time windows, timezone) but does not go beyond that to mention auth needs, defaults, or behavior when profile_username is omitted.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the resource ('Posting queue configuration') and parenthetically lists key content fields. Every word adds value; there is no fluff.
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?
With one optional parameter and no explanation of its meaning or effect, plus no mention of what happens when it is omitted, the description leaves an important usage gap. The output schema may cover return fields, but the input behavior is not sufficiently explained for confident invocation.
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?
Input schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the only parameter, profile_username. Although the name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no information about whether it is required, what it filters, or how it affects the returned settings.
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 title 'Get queue settings' plus the description 'Posting queue configuration (slots per day, time windows, timezone)' clearly identify the resource and the data returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_queue_settings or preview_queue, but the getter verb and listed fields make the purpose 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as update_queue_settings or preview_queue, nor are prerequisites or typical invocation contexts mentioned. The description implies it is a read operation, but it does not state exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.