invoke_get_mcp_helpReturns deeper Socializioz MCP rules only when needed. Use a topic (workspace, brand, connections, x, posts, approval, publishing, media, campaigns, timing) or a tool name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Help topic or exact tool name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description's 'only when needed' phrase adds some context but not a new behavioral trait beyond what annotations already communicate. This is adequate and consistent.
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 sentences, no filler, with the core behavior and the required argument shown upfront. Every sentence contributes meaning and the format is easy to parse.
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-only help tool with complete annotations and a single input, the description supplies all required context: what it returns, when to use it, and the exact parameter format. No other information is needed for correct invocation.
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?
Although the schema already describes the topic parameter at 100% coverage, the description enriches it by enumerating valid topic values (workspace, brand, connections, x, posts, etc.) and clarifying that an exact tool name is also acceptable. This goes beyond a bare schema definition.
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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('deeper Socializioz MCP rules'), and differentiates this tool from all sibling tools by being the only help/rules access point. It also lists the accepted topics, so the purpose 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?
The description states when to invoke it ('only when needed') and specifies the input form ('a topic ... or a tool name'), giving actionable guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives or explain what counts as 'needed,' so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and lifecycle state, so an agent can usually pick correctly. The main ambiguity is among the profile/context tools and the approve/schedule/publish family, but the descriptions give enough state-specific detail to avoid serious misselection.
The set consistently uses an invoke_ prefix with snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun pattern. It only deviates with names like media_preflight and x_live_read, which place the verb at the end or use noun phrases.
With 33 tools, the server is well beyond the typical well-scoped range. It covers many distinct areas, but the high number of status-specific post tools and separate context/profile/workspace tools makes the surface feel bloated rather than cohesive.
The core social publishing workflow is covered well: create, edit, approve, schedule, publish, cancel, retry, and campaign planning. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete/archive for drafts, campaigns, or assets, and limited tools for inbox, comment, or broader analytics beyond the single X read gateway.