list_scheduledRetrieve all scheduled posts that are pending publication across your social media channels.
List all currently scheduled (not-yet-published) posts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
The read-only and non-destructive nature is already covered by annotations. The description adds the useful clarification that 'scheduled' means 'not-yet-published', but does not disclose any additional behavior such as ordering, pagination, or default limits.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence states the action, object, and a clarifying definition. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 parameterless read-only operation, the description captures the essential scope and meaning. It would be slightly stronger if it mentioned the output shape, but the simplicity of the tool makes the absence non-critical.
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?
The tool has zero parameters sensitive to the empty input schema, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Its clarity about the resource being listed is sufficient for an agent to know what the call will return.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('post') and scope ('all currently scheduled'). The parenthetical '(not-yet-published)' removes ambiguity about what 'scheduled' means and distinguishes this from post status or history tools.
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 makes the intended use implicit: call this when you need the set of posts scheduled but not yet published. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related tools like get_status or get_history, or mention any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.