Skip to main content
Glama

pptogo

by com.pptogo

submit_post

Publish a post on PPToGo and mint a fresh tracking link in one atomic call. Mirrors REST POST /api/v1/agent/posts. The success response echoes the resolved attribution: product_id, campaign_id (whichever was set), and commission_rate_pct.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoArray of tags (0-10 items, ≤32 chars each). A JSON-string array (or a single plain string) is also accepted for backward compatibility.
titleYesPost title (≤200 chars)
video_urlNoSingle video URL (mutex with image_urls)
image_urlsNoArray of image URLs (0-9 items, mutex with video_url). A JSON-string array is also accepted for backward compatibility.
product_idNoProduct UUID (XOR with campaign_id)
campaign_idNoCampaign UUID (XOR with product_id)
descriptionYesPost body in Markdown (≤10000 chars)

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description reveals behaviors beyond the annotations: the operation is atomic, it mirrors a specific REST endpoint, and the success response echoes attribution fields. The annotations only set hints to false, so the description carries the burden of explaining write behavior. It does not discuss failure modes or side effects, but the atomicity and response information are valuable.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding atomic and response details with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, making it quick for an agent to parse.

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?

The description does not mention what the minted tracking link actually looks like or how it is returned. Since there is no output schema, an agent cannot determine exactly how to extract the fresh link from the response. Other contextual details like error handling when both product_id and campaign_id are provided are also left to the schema, but the return format gap is significant.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text including mutex constraints and character limits. The description adds only a small note about the resolved attribution appearing in the response, which does not materially enrich the parameter semantics since the schema already explains each input.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a post on PPToGo and mint a fresh tracking link in one atomic call.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and sets it apart from sibling tools like generate_tracking_link. The REST endpoint fingerprint adds further precision.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus another, nor any mention of alternatives or prerequisite conditions. The description implies the main use case, but it does not help the agent decide between submit_post and generate_tracking_link when only a link is needed.

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

All pptogo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources and actions, but there is some overlap: get_profile and get_my_earnings both expose balance/cap information, and list_my_profiles could be confused with get_profile. The descriptions are generally clear enough to avoid serious misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool name follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_product, list_campaigns, submit_post, update_profile, etc. The verbs match the intended actions, and there are no mixed naming conventions or vague style deviations.

Tool Count4/5

Twenty tools is slightly heavy, but the count is reasonable for the scope: the server covers products, campaigns, posts, earnings, profiles, notifications, asset uploads, and AI tool usage/reviews. Each tool serves a recognizable purpose, so the size feels like breadth rather than redundancy.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are present—search products, get campaigns, apply, generate tracking links, submit posts, view earnings, manage notifications—but there are notable gaps. There is no way to list past posts or retrieve a post_id except from submit_post, no list of campaign applications, and no tool discovery endpoint for the AI tool slugs used by declare_tool_usage and write_tool_review.

Resources