Retrieves per-account posting status: latest post, approved-pending, in-flight, and out-of-type bones. Provides read-only board state for pre-publish review.
アカウントごとの最終投稿・approved 待ち・inflight・型外の骨を返す（読むだけ）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states '（読むだけ）' (read only), which is an important behavioral disclosure given that no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like data freshness, authentication requirements, or whether results are aggregated, so it only partially covers the transparency burden.
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 compact sentence, front-loading the returned content and appending the read-only note. It is efficient with no filler, though domain-specific jargon like '型外の骨' may reduce clarity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema or annotations, the description lists the main return categories, which is helpful. However, it leaves terms like 'inflight' and '型外の骨' undefined and provides no indication of when to invoke this tool relative to siblings, so an agent may not fully understand the output or usage context.
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, and the schema is an empty object (100% coverage). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already shows.
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 verb ('返す' = returns) and the specific data categories (per-account final post, approved-pending, inflight, off-schema bones). This makes the tool's purpose reasonably distinct from siblings like thth_queue or thth_preview, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description only mentions the output content and read-only nature, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name 'board'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.