Retrieve your recently saved X posts, newest first, with optional filters for source, author, media type, and publish dates. Returns up to 50 results.
The user's most recently saved X posts, newest first, optionally filtered (source, author, has:image/video/link/article, publish dates since/until as YYYY, YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD). Max 50.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| has | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| until | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| source | No | both |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: result ordering, the hard cap of 50, allowed filter dimensions, and accepted date formats — enough for an agent to predict output shape without trial calls.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence identifying the resource first, then the optional filters, then the cap. No filler, and the dense parenthetical is a compact enumeration rather than prose padding.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, scoping, filters, and limits adequately. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation (search_saves) and the meaning of the source enum values, which matter for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does most of it: it enumerates the has values, explains since/until as YYYY, YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD, and states the limit ceiling. It does not explain what source='both'/'bookmark'/'like' mean or note the default limit of 15, both of which remain undocumented.
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 resource (the user's recently saved X posts) with ordering (newest first) and an explicit cap (Max 50), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling search_saves, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between 'recent' and 'search'.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool is for browsing recent saves with optional narrowing filters. The description never says when to prefer it over search_saves or get_post, nor any exclusions, so the agent must guess the selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.