mixpost-mcp-server

mixpost_list_posts

List posts in your social media workspace with pagination and status filters to review scheduled or published content.

Instructions

List posts in the workspace

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mixpost_list_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number for pagination
`limit`	No	Number of posts per page
`status`	No	Filter by post status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List posts', which is barely more than the tool name. It does not mention pagination, default limit, or that it is a read-only operation. No side effects or prerequisites are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence ('List posts in the workspace') with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and to the point, using five words to convey the core purpose efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with a complete parameter schema, the description combined with the schema provides the minimum viable context to invoke the tool. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return format or how pagination/filtering work, leaving some gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (page, limit, status). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents, 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('posts'), which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools, but the resource name differentiates them. The addition of 'in the workspace' provides some scope context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like mixpost_get_post for a single post, or mixpost_create_post for creating. There is no mention of use cases or exclusion criteria, which is especially needed given the large number of sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.