Hold a pending post to stop it from publishing at its scheduled time; resume it later when needed.
Hold a pending post so it does not go out at its time. Resume it later with resume_post.
| 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 already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It clarifies the observable effect on scheduling but says nothing about resulting post state, whether a paused post still occupies its slot, or how pause interacts with approval flows.
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 tight sentences: the effect first, the reversal path second. No filler, no restatement of the name or 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?
For a single-parameter state-change tool with no output schema and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what changes and how to undo it. It could go slightly further on what state the post lands in, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.
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?
Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including its provenance ('from list_scheduled_posts'). The description adds no further detail about the id, so the schema does all the semantic work — the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas 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 (hold/pause) and resource (a pending post) plus the effect: preventing it from going out at its scheduled time. It also names the sibling that reverses it, so an agent can distinguish pause_post from resume_post without reading either schema.
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 phrase 'pending post' scopes usage and the description explicitly routes to resume_post for the inverse action. It does not state exclusions (e.g., what to do with a post already published), but the context is clear enough to select the tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.