Skip to main content
Glama

social schedule draft

native.social_schedule_draft
DestructiveIdempotent

Create, approve or update one calendar event. Defaults to review. Publishing is free. Schedule mode requires publishing authorization and exact accounts. For a new unpinned draft, placement shared fits it into the account's round-robin project slots; existing pinned and submitted posts keep their times. Otherwise calendarAnchor is the exact requested time.

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": {
      "work_id": "<work_id>",
      "arguments": "<arguments>",
      "expected_catalog_version": "<expected_catalog_version>",
      "read_skills": "<read_skills>",
      "request_key": "<request_key>"
    },
    "name": "native.social_schedule_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_idYes
argumentsYes
read_skillsYesExact required native skills and their dependencies, copied from the accepted session bootstrap's skills array. Include only entries in that array. General mcp.* guides and native.{studio}.instructions are guidance, not native skill proofs.
request_keyYes
publication_proposal_idNoFor native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
expected_catalog_versionYesFor a new session, read a studios/{studio}/native/{pack} child toolset and copy invocation.catalog_version from a native tool descriptor. Do not use the top-level library version. For calls in an existing session, use that session proposal's catalog_version.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=false... in fact destructive=true, openWorld=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds what annotations cannot: the default is review (non-committal), scheduling requires publishing authorization and exact accounts, and publishing itself is described as free. The placement rules (shared round-robin slotting for new unpinned drafts versus pinned/submitted posts keeping their times) disclose mutation behavior an agent would otherwise only discover by trial.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and there is little outright padding, but the phrasing is compressed to the point of ambiguity – "Publishing is free" and "exact accounts" require inference, and the placement sentence packs two rules into one long clause.

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

Completeness3/5

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 a nested 6-parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers mode, authorization and timing semantics but omits the concurrency contract (expectedRevision) and the draft-versus-event distinction, which matter a lot before calling a destructive tool. It is adequate but leaves meaningful pre-call uncertainty.

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 50% and several nested fields (placement, calendarAnchor, pinned, mode) have no schema descriptions at all, so the description must compensate – and it does explain that placement=shared means round-robin project slots while otherwise calendarAnchor is the exact requested time. It leaves draftId, expectedRevision/timezone and the catalog/skill arguments unexplained, so the compensation is partial rather than complete.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Create, approve or update one calendar event" gives a verb and a resource, but the resource is called an "event" while the tool is named and its args are about a social draft, which blurs what is actually being mutated. It also never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as schedule_social_draft, prepare_social_schedule, save_social_draft and review_social_draft, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Defaults to review" and "schedule mode requires publishing authorization and exact accounts" give real conditional guidance for choosing a mode, plus a prerequisite for the risky path. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over the many sibling scheduling/draft tools, and no explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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