postscript_get_keywordGet a single SMS keyword by its ID. Returns the keyword text, status, and configuration (welcome message, list assignment).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | Yes | Postscript Private API token (Bearer). | |
| keyword_id | Yes | Postscript keyword ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-postscript-api-key",
+ "keyword_id": "kw_xyz789"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about returned fields (text, status, configuration), which is helpful given no output schema, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.
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?
Single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the description adds value.
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?
Given no output schema, the description specifies return fields (text, status, configuration). For a simple read operation with good annotations, this is largely complete, though missing mention of potential error cases (e.g., nonexistent keyword).
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 descriptions for both parameters are clear and sufficient (e.g., '_apiKey: Postscript Private API token (Bearer).', 'keyword_id: Postscript keyword ID.'). The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so 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?
The description explicitly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('a single SMS keyword by its ID'), and the return fields ('keyword text, status, and configuration'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like postscript_list_keywords.
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 implies usage for retrieving details of a specific keyword but does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools like postscript_list_keywords for listing multiple keywords.
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 have clear, distinct purposes with detailed descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is some overlap among data query tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile) and among Polymarket analysis tools, which could cause confusion for an agent.
Tool names lack a consistent pattern, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, bet_research) with descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt) and some with verbs (list_subscriptions, remember). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.
With 34 tools, the server covers a broad scope including data querying, Polymarket analysis, SMS management, and utilities. While many tools are justified, the number feels slightly high and some tools (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools) might be consolidated.
The server provides comprehensive coverage for data analysis, entity resolution, fact-checking, and monitoring. However, SMS management lacks create/update operations for keywords and subscribers, and there is no tool for sending SMS messages, indicating minor gaps.