postnitro_delete_scheduled_postDelete a scheduled post (or draft) and all of its related content. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheduledPostId | Yes | The scheduled-post ID to delete (get from postnitro_list_scheduled_posts) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Confirmation message | |
| success | Yes |
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?
Explicitly warns that the action cannot be undone, reinforcing the destructiveHint annotation. Also mentions deletion of related content, providing side-effect detail.
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, concise 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?
Adequate for a simple delete operation; no extra context needed.
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 single parameter scheduledPostId is well-described in the schema with a source reference. The tool description does not add extra meaning but is consistent.
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?
Clearly states the action (delete) and the target (scheduled post or draft) and scope (related content). Distinguishes from other scheduled post tools by its destructive nature.
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?
Does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update_scheduled_post, but the destructive intent is clear. Lacks guidance on when to use vs other tools, so a moderate score.
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 are clearly separated by verb and noun (generate_carousel vs generate_image vs generate_video, import_* vs generate_*). The generic convenience names like generate_and_wait and import_and_wait are slightly ambiguous, but their descriptions and the _wait/_schedule suffixes make them distinguishable.
All tools share the postnitro_ prefix and snake_case verb-first convention. A few compound names (generate_and_schedule, import_and_wait) break the strict verb_noun pattern, but the convention is otherwise consistent and predictable.
With 35 tools, the surface exceeds the rubric's 25+ 'too many' threshold. Many entries are convenience wrappers (_wait, _and_schedule) around the same core operations and could be consolidated to reduce overload.
The domain is well covered: generation, import, output retrieval, scheduling, brands, social accounts, audio, templates, presets, and defaults. Minor gaps remain (no delete_brand, no upload/connect for audio/social accounts), but those are largely external or non-critical.