Edit an existing post. Only include fields you want to change. Use is_pinned to pin/unpin a post from the top of the feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| is_pinned | No | ||
| content_json | No | ||
| content_format | No |
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 must carry the full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior and explains is_pinned semantics, which is valuable. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to unspecified fields, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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 short sentences, no filler, and each sentence provides actionable guidance. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves many important aspects unaddressed: parameter formats, the relationship between content and content_json, and the effects of the update operation. It covers only one parameter's semantics and the basic edit intent, so it is not complete for a tool with six parameters and nested objects.
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 0%, and the description only elaborates on is_pinned. The fields content, category, content_json, content_format, and even id are not explained. The 'only include fields you want to change' hint gives a clue that all properties are optional fields to update, but this is insufficient for six parameters with nested objects.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing post'), clearly distinguishing this tool from create_post and get_post siblings. The scope is unambiguous, and the pinned behavior adds further specificity.
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 statement 'Only include fields you want to change' gives clear partial-update guidance and clarifies how to use the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over other update tools, but the tool name makes that obvious enough.
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.
