Get pre-publish guidance by checking thread growth history for an account and topic. See post counts and time windows to judge whether your planned post will perform well.
投稿する前に呼ぶ。この語とこの型で、スレッドがどう伸びたかの実績を、件数と期間つきで返す
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | 型（行動・年度付き 等） | |
| min_n | No | 中央値を返す下限（既定 20） | |
| topic | Yes | 語（トピック） | |
| account | Yes | account 名 | |
| is_reply | No | 返信として出すか | |
| hour_band | No | 出す予定の時刻帯（朝・昼・夕・深夜） | |
| window_days | No | 直近何日（既定 30） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return value (count and duration) but omits whether the operation is read-only, side effects, permissions, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the general purpose and output shape but does not cover when to use it vs. siblings, behavioral safety, or parameter interplay. For a tool called 'before_you_post', more context on expected usage would be needed.
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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value by referring to 'this word' and 'this type' (topic and kind) but does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific action ('call before posting') and the resource (thread growth track record) and output (count and duration). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from the 'after_you_posted' sibling by the temporal context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
It explicitly says 'call before posting', providing a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention exclusions or name alternative tools like 'after_you_posted' or 'thread_read', so it falls short of the full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.