Skip to main content
Glama

Tailwind App

create_posts

Use this when the user wants many Pinterest Pins created at once, such as importing a spreadsheet or a list of Pins: up to 175 Pins in one call, each with its own image, title, description, link, Board and schedule. Each entry takes the same fields as create_post except intervalBoards and carouselItems, which a batch refuses per entry; those Pins go through create_post one at a time. A draft entry (no sendAt and no useNextOpenSlot) may leave out the image if it has a title, description or url: it is saved with Tailwind's placeholder image, and the user adds the real image later with Change media in Tailwind's Pin Scheduler, since these tools cannot change a Pin's image. The call returns a batchId straight away and the Pins are created in the background, one at a time in the order given; get_post_batch reports each entry as created, failed or pending. A batch the account cannot pay for is refused whole, with nothing created. Each scheduled entry is charged as create_post would charge it, and drafts are free. Submitting the identical batch again within 7 days returns the original batch rather than creating its Pins twice. To retry the entries that failed, put only those entries in a new create_posts call with retryOfBatchId set to the batch they failed in. For a larger import, split it into batches of up to 175. If the user did not say which Pinterest account to use and list_accounts returns more than one, ask the user which account to use before calling this — do not choose for them.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postsYesOne entry per Pin, each with create_post's fields except intervalBoards and carouselItems. Results come back in this order.
accountIdYesNumeric Tailwind account ID returned by list_accounts
retryOfBatchIdNoWhen resending entries that failed, the batchId they failed in. Without it, resending the exact entries of a batch returns that batch instead of trying them again.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
batchYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: asynchronous return of a batchId with background creation in order, per-entry failure states readable via get_post_batch, all-or-nothing refusal on insufficient funds, per-entry charging with free drafts, 7-day duplicate-batch dedupe, and the placeholder-image limitation that the tools cannot change a Pin's image. The dedupe behavior is a useful nuance alongside idempotentHint=false and does not contradict it.

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 trigger condition and batch size, but the remainder is a single dense run-on paragraph mixing charging, dedupe, retry, and account-selection rules. Every sentence carries information, yet splitting into shorter statements would improve scannability without loss.

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?

For a destructive=false, non-idempotent bulk mutation with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: batching limits, async result model, failure recovery, cost side effects, and account disambiguation. Nothing essential to a correct first call is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by stating that entries take create_post's fields minus intervalBoards and carouselItems, that draft entries may omit the image while scheduled ones may not, and how retryOfBatchId overrides the duplicate-batch shortcut. It stops short of clarifying per-field nuances beyond the schema, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scale ('many Pinterest Pins created at once... up to 175 Pins in one call') and immediately differentiates from the sibling create_post for entries that can't be batched. An agent can distinguish create_posts from create_post, schedule_post, and create_media_upload without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives and conditions: intervalBoards/carouselItems go through create_post one at a time, larger imports split into batches of 175, failed entries retried via a new create_posts with retryOfBatchId, and the account must be confirmed with list_accounts when ambiguous. This is when-to/when-not coverage rather than implied usage.

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