Save AI-repurposed posts as drafts and map each post to target social connection IDs for later scheduling or review.
Save AI-repurposed content as draft posts. Provide an array of posts with content and target connections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| posts | Yes | Array of repurposed posts to save as drafts |
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=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: output lands as drafts, not live posts. It says nothing about what happens with invalid connectionIds, whether duplicates are created (consistent with idempotentHint=false), or what is returned.
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 with the key action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is close to redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.
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-parameter write tool with full schema coverage the description covers the essentials, but with no output schema it should say what saving actually yields (created draft IDs, per-post success/failure) and whether connections must be pre-validated. Those omissions matter for a mutation 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single nested posts parameter, and the schema already documents content and connectionIds. The description merely echoes "content and target connections" without adding format, limits, or ordering semantics, 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?
"Save AI-repurposed content as draft posts" gives a concrete verb (save) and resource (draft posts) with a meaningful qualifier that the result is a draft rather than a published post. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like create_post or bulk_create_posts, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 second sentence only restates the input shape (array of posts with content and target connections) rather than saying when this tool should be chosen. There is no mention of bulk_create_posts or create_post as alternatives, and no guidance on when repurposing is appropriate versus direct creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.