FeedSquad

Publish Now

publish_post

DestructiveIdempotent

Publishes an approved post (status ready or scheduled) to its platform (LinkedIn, X or Threads) immediately. The post goes live publicly and cannot be deleted through this server afterwards. A draft is refused with approval_required. The platform is read from the post itself. Retries are idempotent: they replay the cached response instead of publishing twice. dry_run=true validates without publishing. 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": {
      "post_id": "<post_id>"
    },
    "name": "publish_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dry_run`	No	When true, the call validates without calling the platform and returns what would happen.
`post_id`	Yes	The ID of the post to publish immediately
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client key for retry-safe publishes. Same key + post = cached response replay.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`quota`	No
`title`	No
`health`	No
`status`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`draft_id`	Yes
`platform`	Yes
`timezone`	No
`char_count`	Yes
`server_now`	No
`time_input`	No
`status_after`	No
`dashboard_url`	No
`status_before`	No
`would_publish`	No
`approval_reset`	No
`scheduled_date`	No
`scheduled_local`	No
`timezone_source`	No
`already_published`	No
`approval_required`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real semantics: the post goes live publicly and cannot be deleted through this server, the platform is derived from the post rather than supplied, and retries replay a cached response instead of double-publishing. These are consequences an agent cannot derive from the annotation flags alone.

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?

Six short sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact, with the most consequential warning (public, non-deletable) front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with an output schema already available, the description covers the remaining unknowns: approval gate, irreversibility, idempotent retry behavior, and the dry-run escape hatch. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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; the description earns a step up by clarifying that post_id determines the target platform implicitly and by reinforcing that idempotency_key yields cached replay and dry_run only validates. It does not add new syntax or format constraints beyond what the schema documents.

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 verb ('Publishes'), resource ('an approved post'), target platforms (LinkedIn, X or Threads) and timing ('immediately'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like confirm_post, update_post, or archive_posts without opening any schema.

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 explicit preconditions (post must be status ready or scheduled) and an explicit exclusion (a draft is refused with approval_required), plus a safe validation path via dry_run=true. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative — e.g., which tool to call to move a draft to approved status — so an agent must infer that next step.

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

All FeedSquad tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?