Skip to main content
Glama

Create many posts at once

create_posts
Destructive

Up to 25 posts of one workspace in one call: a week or a month of content, or one piece per account at each account's best time (get_best_times next_times). Each item in posts is exactly a create_post body without workspace_id (channel_ids/group_ids, caption, media_ids, schedule_at, per_channel, fit_shape, confirmation_token…), and goes through create_post one by one, in order, with all its checks, caps and confirmations. One item's failure doesn't stop the others: results has one entry per item, in order, with ok and either the post or the error (code, message, details). An item that needs confirmation comes back with error.code needs_confirmation and its confirmation_token in error.details: show the plan to the human, then send only those items again with confirmation_token. validate_only: true runs validate_post on every item instead and saves nothing (each result is a validate_post answer with draft_id and confirmation_token). Retrying: give each item an idempotency_key, or one idempotency_key for the call (item i then uses ":"), and a retry replays the items that went through and retries the rest.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "posts": "<posts>"
    },
    "name": "create_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postsYescreate_post bodies without workspace_id, in order
workspace_idYesWorkspace id from list_workspaces
validate_onlyNotrue: validate every item (validate_post) and save nothing
idempotency_keyNoAny unique string you choose (REST: the Idempotency-Key header works too). Retrying with the same key and body returns the first result instead of creating a second one. Kept 24 hours.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds rich behavior beyond that: each item goes through create_post one by one with all checks, caps and confirmations; one failure doesn't stop others; results are ordered per item with ok or error(code, message, details); confirmation_token handling; validate_only saves nothing. This is well past what the annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the batch size and workspace scope, then details flows. It is dense and slightly run-on in places (parenthetical field lists), but every sentence carries operational information an agent needs; nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the results shape (ordered entries with ok plus post or error code/message/details) and the confirmation_token return path. For a destructive batch tool with nested item semantics, this is complete enough to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical meaning the schema cannot: the posts array items are 'exactly a create_post body without workspace_id' with enumerated fields (channel_ids/group_ids, caption, media_ids, schedule_at, per_channel, fit_shape, confirmation_token), which matters because the item schema is an empty additionalProperties object. It also explains idempotency_key composition, including the call-level '<key>:<i>' suffix per item.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Up to 25 posts of one workspace in one call', and distinguishes itself from the sibling create_post by describing the batch semantics. An agent can immediately tell this is the bulk variant rather than the single-post tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete use cases (a week or month of content, one piece per account at each account's best time via get_best_times next_times) and explicitly names alternatives: use validate_only to run validate_post instead, and use create_post semantics per item. The needs_confirmation and retry flows tell the agent exactly what to do in edge cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources