Retrieve posts awaiting approval and their outcomes, then filter by status to build a review queue for content moderation and publishing decisions.
List posts waiting for approval (and their outcomes). Filter by status to build a review queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Comma-separated: pending, approved, rejected, changes_requested, expired, revoked. Default: all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that non-pending outcomes are returned too, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination, which is a meaningful gap for a list tool.
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, no filler, with the filtering hint front-loaded after the core action. The parenthetical '(and their outcomes)' is slightly in tension with 'waiting for approval', but it is efficient overall.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient. It still omits what a returned record contains and whether results are bounded, which an agent would want before calling it to assemble a review queue.
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% and the enum-like values plus the 'Default: all' behavior are fully documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the filtering idea without adding format or combination guidance beyond the schema, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List posts waiting for approval') plus the added scope that outcomes are included, which an agent can act on directly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_posts or get_approval_status, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Filter by status to build a review queue' implies the intended workflow, so usage is more than absent. However, it never names when to prefer list_posts (all content) or get_approval_status (single item) instead, leaving sibling routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.