buffer_list_channelsList connected channels for an organization, including service, timezone, and queue state, so you can identify where posts can be published.
List connected channels for an organization with service, timezone, and queue state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organizationId | No | Organization id. Defaults to buffer.organizationId or the first organization. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing pertains to 'connected' channels for an organization and hints at returned fields, but says nothing about volume, paging, or whether disconnected channels are excluded.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the shapes returned (service, timezone, queue state), compensating for the absent return documentation. Missing only ordering/pagination detail.
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 single organizationId parameter is fully documented with its default behavior in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, 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 specific verb and resource ('List connected channels') scoped to an organization, which separates it from the singular buffer_get_channel. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus buffer_get_channel or buffer_list_organizations, and no mention of prerequisites or defaults beyond what the schema already carries. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.