Publish a new post to the community feed. Either content (markdown) or content_json (tiptap) is required. content_format must match which field you sent. category is optional — omit for default "general".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | Markdown body (use when content_format=markdown) | |
| category | No | ||
| content_json | No | Tiptap JSON doc (use when content_format=tiptap_json) | |
| content_format | No | Defaults to markdown |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does specify key constraints (content/content_json requirement, format matching, category default) but doesn't address edge cases like what happens if both content and content_json are supplied, or what the response/visibility implications of 'publish' are.
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?
The description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then covering the essential constraints. Every sentence contributes value without repetition or fluff.
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 moderate-complexity create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main usage rules (which fields, format matching, category) but omits edge cases and post-creation behavior. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some gaps in understanding the full behavior.
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?
The schema already describes content, content_json, and content_format, but the description adds the crucial exclusivity/requirement relationship and clarifies the category default ('general'). This meaningfully supplements the schema, especially for the undocumented category parameter.
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 opens with a specific action—'Publish a new post to the community feed'—clearly stating the resource (post) and the destination (community feed). This verb+resource+context combination distinguishes it from other create_* siblings and from update_post.
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 gives clear context for creation (a new post) and explains the required field relationship (either content or content_json) and the format-matching rule. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like update_post, but the creation context is unambiguous.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action combination, and similar-looking tools are carefully differentiated in descriptions (e.g., get_course_structure vs list_course_modules, update_lesson vs update_lesson_content). There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools use a consistent 'hivelearn_<verb>_<noun>' pattern with common verbs (get, list, create, update). The only minor deviation is 'add' vs 'create' (add_track_course vs create_track), but this is semantically appropriate and does not disrupt the overall pattern.
With 57 tools, the server is significantly over the recommended range and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad domain (courses, community, analytics) justifies a large surface, this many tools makes selection overwhelming for agents and suggests a need for consolidation or sub-servers.
The tool surface covers create, read, and update for most core entities (courses, lessons, quizzes, tracks, posts, events, resources), plus publishing/verification and analytics. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for courses, lessons, modules, quizzes, posts, events, resources, or enrollments, and no way to remove a course from a track. These lifecycle holes are significant but not fatal for common workflows.
