Reply to a client's post feedback so the response appears on their review page.
Add a reply to the client conversation on a post. The client sees it on their review page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The post id, from list_scheduled_posts | |
| body | Yes | The reply, up to 1000 characters |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is lower. However, it adds only that the client sees the reply on their review page, without explaining rate limits, character limits beyond the schema, or any side effects. For a write operation, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes a useful secondary detail. It is concise and every part earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's relative simplicity (2 params, full schema coverage, annotations) the description covers the basics. However, as a mutation tool it could include more context about permissions, the effect on the post, or return behavior, making it only minimally sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb (Add a reply) and resource (client conversation on a post), making the tool's action unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_post_feedback, but the 'reply' noun and the fact that it's an addition rather than a retrieval sets it apart adequately.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_post_feedback or other communication tools. The description implies usage from its purpose but provides no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.