list_scheduled_notesList queued Substack Notes soonest first and check if each published, failed, or was canceled; filter by status and see failure reasons.
List Notes queued by schedule_note, soonest first. Also shows which ones published, which failed and why.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status. Omit to see all of them. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is covered. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context absent from annotations: results are ordered 'soonest first', and entries expose publication outcome plus failure reasons. No pagination or limit behavior is disclosed, keeping it short of a 5.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose and sort order come first, and the secondary return detail follows, so the definition is well front-loaded.
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 zero-required-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema docs, the description covers purpose, ordering, and what the return conveys (published/failed plus reasons). With no output schema, it could say more about the shape of a returned Note, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 100% and the single status enum is fully documented in the schema ('Omit to see all of them'). The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource (list scheduled Notes) plus the scope qualifier 'queued by schedule_note'. This distinguishes it from list_notes (all notes) and list_scheduled_posts (posts, not Notes) without needing to open any schema.
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 phrase 'queued by schedule_note' implies the use case and ties it to the sibling that creates these entries, giving implied guidance. However, it never explicitly routes the agent between this, list_notes, and list_scheduled_posts, nor states when-not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.