Search posts in a collection by date range, including the end date. Set timezone and day-start hour to define daily boundaries for accurate date filtering.
YYYY-MM-DDの日付範囲で投稿を検索する。終了日も含む。既定は東京の朝4時区切り、0で暦日。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | Yes | ||
| collection_id | Yes | ||
| timezone_name | No | Asia/Tokyo | |
| day_start_hour | 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 this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the end date is inclusive, the default boundary is Tokyo 4 AM, and setting 0 switches to calendar-day boundaries.
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?
The description is short, front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information: search scope, inclusive end date, default boundary, and the special 0 value. There is no wasted text.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Annotations cover safety. But with seven parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is not fully complete: pagination via limit/cursor and the role of collection_id remain 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It meaningfully explains the date parameters and timezone/day-boundary behavior, but it does not explain collection_id, limit, or cursor semantics, leaving several parameters 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: searching posts by a YYYY-MM-DD date range. It is clearly distinct from a general listing tool in concept, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_posts 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?
The date-range nature implies when the tool is appropriate, and the inclusive end date is clarified. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of list_posts or other sibling listing tools, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.