bulk_postsPerform a bulk action on multiple posts. Supports deleting, retrying, or rescheduling multiple posts at once. Use this when the user wants to delete, retry, or reschedule many posts in a single request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Bulk action: "delete", "retry", or "reschedule". | |
| postIds | Yes | Array of post IDs to perform the action on. | |
| scheduledAt | No | New ISO 8601 datetime. Required when action is "reschedule". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal this is destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only. The description adds natural-language clarity about the bulk nature of the operation, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as partial failure handling, irreversibility beyond the annotation, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.
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 focused sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second states when to use it. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant context, and the core action is front-loaded.
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 moderate-complexity bulk action tool, the description plus a fully described input schema and annotations cover the essential selection and invocation needs. No output schema exists, but the return format is not critical for choosing or calling this tool correctly; the conditional reschedule parameter is documented in the schema.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents the action enum, postIds array, and the conditional requirement for scheduledAt when action is 'reschedule'.
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 ('perform a bulk action'), a clear resource ('multiple posts'), and explicitly enumerates the supported operations: deleting, retrying, and rescheduling. The phrase 'multiple posts' distinguishes it from singular sibling tools like delete_post and retry_post.
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 description gives a clear when-to-use signal: 'Use this when the user wants to delete, retry, or reschedule many posts in a single request.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the bulk-versus-single distinction provides clear context.
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.
Many tools occupy adjacent spaces, especially the interactive view_* tools versus their get_/list_ counterparts (view_posts/list_posts, view_analytics/get_analytics) and the multiple upload paths (upload_media, create_media_upload, multipart flow). Detailed 'Use this when' guidance helps, but an agent could still misselect between compose_post and create_post or between bulk_posts and the individual delete/retry/update operations.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout: create/get/update/delete/list for each resource (posts, media, labels, channel sets, RSS feeds, schedules), plus publish/approve/reject/retry/upload/view. No style mixing or inconsistent casing.
51 tools is an extremely large surface, crossing the calibration's 50+ extreme threshold. While the platform covers many subdomains, this volume is likely to overwhelm agents and makes the toolkit unwieldy for an MCP server.
The toolkit provides broad lifecycle coverage: CRUD for posts, media, labels, channel sets, RSS feeds, and schedules, plus publishing, approvals, retries, bulk operations, analytics, quota, channel health, and media upload variants. Minor gaps exist, such as no get_channel single-resource getter and no way to update media labels directly, but agents can work around these.