Skip to main content
Glama

Create Posts (Batch)

create_posts

Creates up to 50 posts in one call, each saved as a draft (status=draft) with a proposed slot; nothing is scheduled or published until confirm_post approves it. Handler gives every post a slot that honors per-platform daily caps and spacing and does not collide with the other posts in the batch. Returns the draft ids with their assigned slots and a summary (total, per-platform breakdown, calendar span). Posts in a batch take no scheduled_date, idempotency_key or company_page_id. Platforms: X, LinkedIn and Threads; a post with platform bluesky or mastodon fails the whole batch with an error, because publishing to them isn't available yet. Each post's content publishes as a single post; parts separated by a line containing only --- make that post a thread (X and Threads). Every response carries status_before, status_after and approval_required.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "posts": "<posts>"
    },
    "name": "create_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postsYesArray of posts to schedule (max 50).
dry_runNoWhen true, the call validates and returns the proposed schedule without writing drafts.
campaign_modeNoWhen true, Handler relaxes spacing rules for this batch. Daily caps stay enforced.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
postsYes
noticeNo
dry_runYes
successYes
summaryYes
timezoneNo
server_nowNo
status_afterNo
status_beforeNo
approval_resetNo
timezone_sourceNo
approval_requiredNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description goes well beyond that: slot allocation honors per-platform daily caps and spacing, avoids intra-batch collisions, drafts remain unapproved until confirm_post, an unsupported platform aborts the entire batch, and every response carries status_before/status_after/approval_required. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not derive from the schema or hints.

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 action and the draft/confirm contract, then constraints, then return shape — a sensible order. A few sentences are dense run-ons (the slot-allocation and platform-failure clauses), but no sentence is filler.

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 batch mutation with three top-level params and an output schema, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present: draft-only semantics, slot behavior, per-item platform and thread rules, and batch-wide failure mode. Return values are summarized even though an output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: the '---' line separator turns a post into a thread on X and Threads, and unsupported platforms poison the whole batch rather than just their own item. It does not cover dry_run or campaign_mode, which the schema already documents, so it stops short of 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 and batch scope ("Creates up to 50 posts in one call, each saved as a draft"), which immediately separates it from the single-post create_post sibling. It also names the downstream gate (confirm_post) in the same sentence, so the agent knows this is the intake step rather than the publish step.

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?

Gives clear conditions: nothing is scheduled or published until confirm_post approves, unsupported platforms (bluesky, mastodon) fail the whole batch, and batch posts must not carry scheduled_date/idempotency_key/company_page_id. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to pick this over create_post (e.g., single post vs. multiple), which the agent must infer from the 50-item array.

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