list_social_platformsList supported platforms for generate_social_post with default post length and emoji policy. Costs nothing and makes no network call.
List the platforms generate_social_post supports, with each one's default post length and emoji policy. Costs nothing and makes no network call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: zero cost, no network call (i.e., a safe, side-effect-free read), and the shape of what is returned. It stops short of stating read-only guarantees formally or whether results are cached/static, but for a trivial list tool this is solid disclosure.
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, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the cost/network guarantee. Every clause carries information; no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does by naming the platform list plus per-platform length and emoji policy. A simple enumeration tool is adequately covered, though the exact response format (array vs object, field names) is left unspecified.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming no arguments are needed. The description adds the useful detail that the listed items carry attributes (length, emoji policy) rather than being bare names.
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 verb (list) and resource (platforms) and explicitly ties the resource to the sibling generate_social_post, so the agent can distinguish it from check_social_job. It also names the returned fields (default post length, emoji policy), removing ambiguity about what 'platform' data means.
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 description implies the natural use case (discover what generate_social_post supports before calling it) and notes it is free and offline, but never states an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule relative to check_social_job. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.