Generate a public link proving a scheduled post was confirmed live, to share with clients. Requires a live post and an API key with proof-sharing permission.
A public link that shows a post was really confirmed live, to share with a client. Only works for a post confirmed live, and the API key must be allowed to share proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The post id, from list_scheduled_posts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds two behavioral constraints not in annotations: post must be confirmed live, and the API key needs sharing permission. It doesn't explain what the link looks like or its expiration, which would be useful.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by preconditions. No wasted words.
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?
With annotations covering safety and a fully described single parameter, the description adds the two key preconditions needed to call it correctly. It could mention the sibling create_review_link and any output caveats, but overall it's sufficient for a simple read operation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already tells the agent where to get the id ('from list_scheduled_posts'). The main description adds no parameter details beyond this, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb+resource: generates a public proof-of-publish link. It describes the artifact's purpose ('shows a post was really confirmed live, to share with a client'). However, it doesn't name or distinguish from sibling create_review_link, which appears closely related.
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?
Implies the condition for use ('only works for a post confirmed live') and the permission requirement ('API key must be allowed to share proof'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like create_review_link, but the preconditions are clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.