x_organic_scheduler_statusCheck the job queue status for X/Twitter scheduling. View worker, agents, upcoming jobs, and last runs, and start the worker in HTTP mode when needed.
AdvisorPPC's own job queue (X API has no native schedule). Shows worker, agents, upcoming jobs, last runs. HTTP mode starts the worker by itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it notes the queue is AdvisorPPC's own because the X API has no native schedule, and it discloses that HTTP mode starts the worker automatically. This gives the agent operational awareness beyond the structured hint.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence orients the reader with the core resource and the second lists observable data, making it efficient and front-loaded.
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 status tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool is, what it shows, why the queue exists, and a relevant behavioral note about HTTP mode. No critical information is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.
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 identifies the resource as 'AdvisorPPC's own job queue' and specifies the verb 'Shows' plus the exact contents: worker, agents, upcoming jobs, and last runs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scheduler_settings and schedule_list, which address different aspects of scheduling.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool by enumerating what it displays, making its purpose obvious for status checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well enough defined that an agent can route to it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.