Retrieves post history for a specified collection in newest-first order, using cursor-based pagination to continue beyond the current page with up to 100 records per request.
投稿先の履歴を新しい順に取得する。続きは返されたnext_cursorを同じ条件で渡す。最大100件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| collection_id | Yes | ||
| timezone_name | No | Asia/Tokyo | |
| before_timestamp_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are newest-first, pagination uses next_cursor, and the maximum is 100 records.
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?
Three short sentences with no wasted language. Ordering, pagination continuation, and the record cap are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a five-parameter list tool at 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete regarding collection_id, timezone_name, and before_timestamp_ms.
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 must carry parameter meaning. It explains cursor and implies a limit cap, but it leaves the required collection_id and the timezone_name and before_timestamp_ms parameters unexplained.
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 states a clear verb and resource: retrieve posting history in newest-first order. It adds useful scope details such as maximum 100 records and cursor continuation, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like search_posts_by_date or list_scheduled_posts.
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?
It explains pagination usage by saying the returned next_cursor should be passed with the same conditions. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose list_posts versus related tools such as search_posts_by_date or list_scheduled_posts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.