List draft posts to review titles, creation dates, and target audiences. Specify limit and offset to paginate through drafts.
List draft posts. Returns title, creation date, and audience for each draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max drafts to return (1-50; Substack rejects anything higher, so larger values are clamped) | |
| offset | No | Number of drafts to skip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / exclusiveMinimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / offset / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740941Input schema / properties / offset / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / offset / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v0.6.2Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max drafts to return (1-100)"New value: +"Max drafts to return (1-50; Substack rejects anything higher, so larger values are clamped)"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context by specifying the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like ordering, whether draft content/body is omitted, or pagination effects beyond what the schema already covers.
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 no filler. The first sentence gives verb and resource, and the second states the output shape. Every word contributes information.
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 read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, this description is largely complete: it names the return fields even though no output schema exists. It could mention ordering or the lack of full draft content, but those are not essential for basic correct invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage: both limit and offset have meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List draft posts') and enumerates the returned fields (title, creation date, audience). It is distinguishable from list_scheduled_posts by the word 'drafts', but it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_draft or export_draft.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use list_drafts versus siblings like list_scheduled_posts, get_draft, or export_draft. The description only says what the tool does, with no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.