List and filter read-only public research posts gathered during ad interest discovery by project, channel, contact, status, or external post ID without contacting authors.
List bounded public research posts collected during discovery. Read-only; it never contacts authors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| channel | No | ||
| contact_id | No | ||
| project_id | No | neron | |
| external_post_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It does add real behavioral context — 'Read-only; it never contacts authors' rules out side effects and outreach, which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about ordering, pagination, default result size, or what 'bounded' means, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 the operation and its scope, and zero filler. It is arguably too terse given the six undocumented filters, but no sentence wastes space.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and six undescribed filters: the definition gives an agent almost nothing to construct a correct query or interpret results. A user would have to open the schema and guess at the semantics of status, channel, and the 'bounded' scope.
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?
Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage means the description must compensate, and it does not: status, channel, contact_id, project_id, and external_post_id are never mentioned. The only hint is the vague word 'bounded,' which loosely gestures at the limit parameter.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'List ... public research posts collected during discovery' tells the agent this is a read of previously-discovered posts, which distinguishes it from the sibling ads_interest_research_post_upsert. The adjective 'bounded' is unexplained and the sibling is not named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Collected during discovery' implies a context but gives no when-to-use / when-not-to guidance. Nothing routes the agent between this tool and ads_interest_research_stats_list or ads_interest_research_post_upsert, and no prerequisites or filter-before-call advice is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.