BulkPublish

Create recurring schedule

create_schedule

Create a new recurring post schedule. Posts are automatically created and published on the chosen frequency. The schedule is visible in the web app (Repeat Posts page, with upcoming runs on the Calendar); a post record exists only once an occurrence fires, carrying recurringScheduleId. Use this when the user wants a recurring posting schedule.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Schedule name.
`isActive`	No	Whether the schedule starts active. Defaults to true.
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone (e.g. "America/New_York"). Defaults to UTC.
`dayOfWeek`	No	Day of week (0=Sunday..6=Saturday). Required for weekly/biweekly.
`frequency`	Yes	How often the schedule runs.
`timeOfDay`	Yes	Time of day to post, 24h "HH:MM" (e.g. "09:00").
`channelIds`	Yes	Array of channel IDs to post to.
`dayOfMonth`	No	Day of month (1-31). Required for monthly.
`mediaFileIds`	No	Media file IDs re-used for every generated post.
`contentTemplate`	No	Post content template. Defaults to empty.
`requireApproval`	No	Hold every occurrence this schedule generates for team approval — each generated post lands with approvalStatus 'pending' and the scheduler skips it until an approver releases it via approve_post. Defaults to false.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say the call is non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the meaningful side effects that posts are automatically created and published, that the schedule appears in Repeat Posts/Calendar, and that post records are generated lazily only when an occurrence fires. This goes beyond the structured fields, though it slightly oversimplifies the requireApproval case.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, with the core action and main side effect first, followed by useful visibility/record-timing context and a final usage directive. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Full schema coverage plus disclosures about automatic publishing, schedule visibility, and post-record timing cover the main operational expectations. The only notable omission is a caveat about requireApproval delaying publication, but the schema describes that parameter in detail, so this is largely complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter already carries a type/default/conditional requirement, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no new parameter-level semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('recurring post schedule'), and clarifies the semantic difference from immediate posting by explaining posts are generated on a frequency and a post record only exists after an occurrence fires. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_post and schedule management tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a recurring posting schedule,' giving a clear triggering condition. It does not name alternatives such as create_post for one-off posts, but the recurring context makes the intended use unambiguous.

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

All BulkPublish tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?