Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Flaghand

by com.flaghand
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Unschedule a future post without posting or deleting anything on its network

unschedulePost
Destructive

Unschedule a future post without posting or deleting anything on its network

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "rev": "<rev>"
    },
    "name": "unschedulePost"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesScheduled job ID or stable workspace post number, such as "#38" or "38".
revYesCurrent draft revision from getDraft. A concurrent edit or move is refused.
workspaceNoLeave out for the token's workspace (ws_…).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds the key side-effect clarification: nothing is posted or deleted on the connected network, so the operation is confined to local scheduling state. However, it does not say what the post becomes after unscheduling (draft? unscheduled state?), whether the rev precondition causes a refusal, or that annotations flag this as destructive despite the 'without deleting' wording.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and the negative side effects stated clearly. It is verbatim the title, so no information is lost, but also none is gained over the structured fields.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a state-changing tool with a required concurrency token and no output schema, the description omits the resulting state and error behavior (stale rev, already-published post). An agent cannot predict what it gets back or how failures surface.

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%, so the id/rev/workspace semantics, including the 'concurrent edit or move is refused' note, are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this instead of updateScheduledPost, schedulePost, or a delete flow. The only routing signal is the implied 'future' precondition, which an agent must infer.

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

All Flaghand toolsInspect
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