Connect GlamAI.ai with Blog2Social to create, manage, schedule and publish AI-generated content across 25+ social media, blogging and community platforms. Publish text, links, images and videos, manage connected accounts, automate multi-network distribution and retrieve publishing results and social media insights through one secure MCP integration.
Scored across 8 tools
The connection trio (add/list/remove), posts.create, and credits.balance are clearly distinct. The only mild overlap is between networks.list and networks.list_properties, which both query the network catalog, though their descriptions differentiate purpose well enough.
Every tool follows a strict namespace.action convention (connections.add, connections.list, networks.list_properties, videos.check). This is highly predictable and consistent throughout.
Eight tools is a well-scoped set for a social posting integration, covering connections, networks, publishing, video status, and credits without redundancy. Each tool earns its place.
Connection lifecycle is well covered, but the surface is thin for a publishing/scheduling platform: no post listing, update, delete, or scheduling tools despite Blog2Social's core scheduling purpose. videos.check exists with no corresponding upload tool, creating a potential dead end.
Creates an authorization link for connecting a social media profile, page or group. Use network_type_id 0 for a profile, 1 for a page and 2 for a group. Call networks.list first to retrieve the required network_id. Open the returned auth_link to complete authorization. Pinterest is an exception: Pinterest connections require a custom application (service_conditions_id) and do not return an auth_link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Optional language for the authorization flow, for example en or de. | |
| network_id | Yes | Social media network ID returned by the networks.list tool. | |
| network_type_id | Yes | Connection type: 0 = profile, 1 = page, 2 = group. | |
| service_conditions_id | No | Optional service conditions ID for using a custom application. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world semantics, and the description adds real value on top: the returned auth_link must be opened by the user to complete authorization, and Pinterest connections require service_conditions_id and return no auth_link. It does not explain the two-step completion flow or what happens if the link is never opened.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the parameter mapping, then the prerequisite and exception. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no full explanation, yet the description still tells the agent what to do with auth_link. The prerequisite and the Pinterest edge case round out everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds context the schema lacks: the semantic mapping of network_type_id values and the conditional rule that service_conditions_id is only needed for Pinterest custom applications.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: creates an authorization link for connecting a social media profile, page or group. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling connections.list and connections.remove.
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?
Gives an explicit workflow prerequisite ('Call networks.list first to retrieve the required network_id') and names the exception path for Pinterest. It does not state when not to use this tool (e.g. versus re-authorizing an existing connection), so it falls just short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lists the social media accounts connected to the authenticated Blog2Social user. Use client_user_network_id from the result for posts.create.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authentication scope (per-user results) and a key output field, but no pagination, rate-limit, or ordering behavior.
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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one piece of actionable follow-up information. No filler.
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?
A parameterless read tool with an output schema present, so return values need not be documented; the description still surfaces the one output field an agent must reuse. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantics burden and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the social media accounts connected to the authenticated Blog2Social user'), which is concrete and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling networks.list, leaving the agent to infer whether 'connections' and 'networks' are different things.
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?
Gives a clear downstream use case: feed client_user_network_id into posts.create, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how it differs from the sibling list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Permanently removes a connected social media account authorization from the authenticated Blog2Social user. Call connections.list first to retrieve the correct client_user_network_id. This action disconnects the account and requires a new authorization before it can be used again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_user_network_id | Yes | Connected social media account ID returned by connections.list. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the removal is permanent, it disconnects the account, and a fresh authorization is needed to reuse it. It stops short of saying what happens to already-scheduled posts.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the prerequisite call, and the consequence. The destructive nature is front-loaded in the first word.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the prerequisite and the irreversibility/re-auth consequence, which is close to complete for a single-parameter destructive tool; only downstream effects on scheduled posts are unaddressed.
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 100% and the sole parameter's description already says it comes from connections.list, so the description's instruction to call connections.list first is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific verb ('Permanently removes') and resource ('a connected social media account authorization') plus the scope ('from the authenticated Blog2Social user'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools connections.add and connections.list.
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?
Explicitly names the prerequisite workflow: 'Call connections.list first to retrieve the correct client_user_network_id.' It also states the post-condition that re-authorization is required, which functions as a usage warning. It does not, however, state when NOT to use this versus an alternative (e.g., temporarily disabling an account).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the current Blog2Social credit balance for the authenticated service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the modest fact that the balance is scoped to the authenticated service; it says nothing about caching, refresh timing, or rate limits.
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?
A single, well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs. Return-value shape is already documented by the output schema, so its absence from the description is not a gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter details.
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?
States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (current Blog2Social credit balance) with scope (authenticated service). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like connections.list or posts.create, which operate on entirely different resources.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The usage is inferable (call it when you need the balance), but the description never states the condition that selects this tool over, say, a broader account-status tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lists all social media networks that are currently available for connecting to Blog2Social. Use the returned network_id together with network_type_id when calling connections.add.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that connectivity is conditional ('currently available'), giving a hint that results may vary by account state. It says nothing about authentication requirements or whether the list can be empty.
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, front-loaded with the purpose before the chaining instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 an output schema present, the description need not document return fields, and with no parameters and full annotation coverage the remaining burden is light. It correctly points at the downstream use of the returned IDs, though it omits any note on empty results or account prerequisites for a tool with openWorldHint=true.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the rubric's baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately avoids redundant parameter talk.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists all social media networks') and narrows scope to those 'currently available for connecting to Blog2Social'. The availability/connectivity framing distinguishes it from the sibling networks.list_properties, which enumerates attributes rather than connectable networks.
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?
It gives clear workflow context: the returned network_id must be paired with network_type_id when calling connections.add. That tells the agent where this tool sits in a sequence, but it never names when NOT to use it or how to choose between it and connections.list / networks.list_properties.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lists the properties for all available social media networks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no auth requirements, rate limits, or explanation of what 'properties' actually exposes.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is not padded, though brevity here comes at the cost of disambiguation rather than being purely a virtue.
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?
A no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema is simple, so the description needn't explain return values. Still, the undefined term 'properties' and the unresolved overlap with networks.list leave an agent guessing about what this returns versus its nearest sibling.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate in the input schema.
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?
States a specific verb (lists) and resource (properties of social media networks), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'networks.list' — an agent cannot tell from the text why it would call list_properties instead of list, or what 'properties' resolves to.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no reference to the closely-named alternatives (networks.list, connections.list). The phrase 'for all available social media networks' hints at unfiltered scope but does not function as routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Publishes text, link, image or video posts. Use postFormat 0 for text or link posts, 1 for image posts and 2 for video posts. mediaObjects is required only for image and video posts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b2s_posts | Yes | One or more posts to publish to the selected account. Use postFormat 0 for text or links, 1 for images, and 2 for videos; image and video posts require mediaObjects. | |
| client_user_network_id | Yes | Connected social media account ID returned by connections.list. All posts in b2s_posts are published to this account. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the conditional precondition that mediaObjects is mandatory for image/video formats, but says nothing beyond annotations about auth requirements, immediate public publication, or duplicate-post risk from repeat calls.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement, with zero filler. The format-mapping and media-requirement sentences duplicate schema content, so they are slightly redundant but still brief and scannable.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully covers both parameters including the account ID's provenance. The remaining gap is the absence of any sibling-routing or prerequisite context for a publish action, but the definition is otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents client_user_network_id, postFormat constants, and mediaObjects. The description merely restates those same mappings, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Publishes text, link, image or video posts") and enumerates the supported post formats. This clearly distinguishes it from every sibling, which deal with connections, networks, credits, or video checking.
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?
Provides conditional usage guidance at the format level (postFormat 0/1/2, mediaObjects required only for image/video), which tells the agent how to configure a call. It gives no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance or prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid client_user_network_id from connections.list, or checking videos before posting).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Checks the status of a video upload using its video token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_token | Yes | Video token returned when the video upload was created. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no mention of polling cadence, eventual-consistency, or what statuses can be returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that names the action, resource, and input. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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 simple one-parameter read-only status check, the description plus rich annotations and the presence of an output schema leave little an agent needs missing. Only the polling/workflow guidance is absent, which is minor for this tool's complexity.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'using its video token' only restates the parameter that the schema already describes in detail.
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?
States a specific verb (Checks) and resource (status of a video upload), and the means (its video token), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate from siblings, but no sibling operates on video uploads, so ambiguity risk is low.
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?
Usage is only implied: the token reference ('returned when the video upload was created') hints that this is called after an upload, but the description never states when to use it, whether to poll repeatedly, or what alternatives exist. No explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
add_connectioncheck_videoconnections.addconnections.listconnections.removecreate_postcredits.balanceget_balancelist_connectionslist_network_propertieslist_networksnetworks.listnetworks.list_propertiesposts.createremove_connectionvideos.checkadd_connectioncheck_videocreate_postget_balancelist_connectionslist_network_propertieslist_networksremove_connection
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.