get_postRetrieve a post's publication status and links to each published copy, especially for targets still marked as publishing.
Show where a post went and the link to each published copy. Use it for targets publish_post reported as still publishing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | The id publish_post returned. |
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 and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral fact that this resolves publish destinations and returns per-copy links. With no output schema, it also partially carries the return-shape burden, though it doesn't say what a still-pending or failed target looks like.
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, zero waste, with the outcome stated first and the usage trigger second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both what is returned (destinations and per-copy links) and when to call it. What it omits — how pending or failed targets are represented in the response — is a minor gap given annotations already establish the safety profile.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is already documented as 'the id publish_post returned'. The description reinforces the publish_post lineage but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 concrete verb (show) and a concrete result set (where a post went plus the link to each published copy), which separates it from siblings like publish_post and recent_posts. It is not a generic 'get a post' fetch, and the description makes that clear, though the name get_post still suggests a broader retrieval role.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger: use it for targets that publish_post reported as still publishing. That is clear, actionable context. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative for completed posts, which keeps it just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.