delete_scheduleDelete a recurring schedule by ID. Stops all future posts from this schedule. Use this when the user wants to stop and delete a recurring schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheduleId | Yes | The schedule ID to delete. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific consequence 'Stops all future posts from this schedule,' which provides context beyond the annotations. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the annotations cover the key safety aspects.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, the third sentence ('Use this when the user wants to stop and delete a recurring schedule.') is partially redundant because the first two sentences already convey the deletion and its effect. Slightly tighter phrasing would earn a 5.
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 delete operation, the description is complete. It states the purpose, the effect, and when to use it. The annotations cover read-only and destructive hints, and no output schema is needed. There is nothing essential missing for an agent to call this 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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameter documentation—'scheduleId' is described as 'The schedule ID to delete.' The description adds nothing new about the parameter beyond saying 'by ID,' which is already implied. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a recurring schedule by ID' and distinguishes it from update_schedule and create_schedule by specifying the deletion aspect. It also clarifies the effect ('Stops all future posts'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants to stop and delete a recurring schedule.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition is clear enough for an agent to route correctly. It could be improved by contrasting with update_schedule for pausing vs. deleting.
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.