Retrieve saved text snippets like hashtag groups and sign-offs, and identify which one is the signature for pasting into a post.
The account's saved text snippets (hashtag groups, sign-offs) and which one is the signature, to paste into a post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations fully cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not obligated to restate them. It does add useful domain context about what the snippets actually are and that one is designated the signature, but says nothing about ordering, return shape, or whether snippets are account-scoped vs workspace-scoped.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and followed by clarifying examples. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the annotations.
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 no output schema, the description must convey the return content, and it does: snippets, their kinds (hashtag groups, sign-offs), and the signature designation. Only the exact field structure and snippet count limits are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a zero-parameter listing tool.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline rule, a 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or selection input is 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 names the resource precisely ('saved text snippets') and illustrates it with concrete examples ('hashtag groups, sign-offs'), plus an extra distinguishing detail (which snippet is the signature). The listing verb is only implied rather than stated, but no sibling tool covers snippets, so an agent can identify this without ambiguity.
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 trailing phrase 'to paste into a post' hints at the use case (retrieving reusable content for composing posts), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no guidance on how this relates to sibling tools like create_draft or schedule_post. Usage is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.