x_organic_schedule_listList AdvisorPPC organic queue jobs and filter by status to track scheduled, running, or failed posts.
List AdvisorPPC queue jobs (not X native). Filter by status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the scoping detail that it lists AdvisorPPC queue jobs, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as result limits, ordering, or whether the list is exhaustive. The description is consistent but adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the annotations.
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 two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the main purpose and scope ('List AdvisorPPC queue jobs') and then adds the filter capability. 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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and filter. It does not describe the return format (e.g., array of job objects) or any pagination, but given the low complexity and lack of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. An agent can infer the basic behavior from the name and description.
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 single parameter 'status' is documented in the schema with an enum, but the description adds meaning by explaining it is a filter ('Filter by status'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose, even though it does not list the enum values (which the schema already provides). This adds value beyond the schema.
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 'AdvisorPPC queue jobs' and clarifies it is 'not X native', which distinguishes it from X-native scheduling tools. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and differentiates it from siblings like x_organic_schedule_create and x_organic_schedule_cancel.
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 provides context by noting the jobs are from AdvisorPPC, not X native, which hints at when to use it versus X-native listers. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify conditions like 'use this when you need AdvisorPPC job status, use x_organic_scheduler_status for scheduler status'. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.