Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PostKing MCP Server

PostKing MCP Server

by bitsandtea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

tag_asset

Add or remove tags on an asset to organize and manage content. Specify addTags and/or removeTags arrays for efficient asset categorization.

Instructions

Add or remove tags on an asset. Provide addTags and/or removeTags as arrays.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "assetId": "<assetId>"
    },
    "name": "tag_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addTagsNoTags to add
assetIdYesAsset ID
brandIdNoBrand ID (defaults to active brand)
removeTagsNoTags to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.7

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose whether tags are merged, whether repeated calls are idempotent, error behavior, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant content. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the description covers the main action and required inputs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to mention return values, edge cases, or exact behavior when both arrays are provided or when tags are missing. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all four parameters have descriptions). The description adds 'and/or' to clarify the relationship between addTags and removeTags, but this is minimal value 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Add or remove tags on an asset' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_asset_tags and delete_asset. The scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs to 'Provide addTags and/or removeTags as arrays', which indicates how to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools