uplika

Open a post with replies and metrics

open_post

Read-only

Everything about one post in a single call: the text, the whole reply thread, and its metrics. This is the right tool when someone hands you a post link. Replies or metrics can come back null if the platform refused just that part.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	A publish id (post_…), the post's own id on the channel, or a post link (the URL you would open in a browser to see it). Links work for posts written in the channel's own app too, as long as the account is connected here.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond it: the call bundles multiple data types and that replies or metrics may come back null if the platform refused that part. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and every sentence earning its place. It is concise without omitting important edge-case behavior.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates what will be returned, covers null behavior, and provides the main use case. For a single-parameter read-only tool, this is sufficient context for correct invocation.

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% and the id parameter is already fully documented with accepted formats. The description reinforces the post-link trigger but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource and scope: one post's text, full reply thread, and metrics in a single call. It also identifies the post-link use case, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_post or list_replies.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: 'This is the right tool when someone hands you a post link.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All uplika tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions actively steer usage (e.g., get_post vs open_post, list_posts vs list_channel_posts). A few pairs like list_accounts vs select_channels or get_post vs open_post still require careful reading to pick the right one, but the overlap is manageable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun (delete_post, get_insights, list_accounts, select_channels), which is consistent and predictable. A few bare-verb names like publish and reply, plus the media_* prefixed tools, break the strict pattern but still feel coherent within their subdomains.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is on the heavier side, but the breadth is justified by the server's scope: publishing, media upload workflows, reply threads, insights, quotas, and account selection. Each tool has a real job, though the four post-retrieval variants and five media tools could feel redundant at a glance.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: publish, reply, delete, retry, retrieve, list, and get insights, plus multi-step media handling. Minor gaps exist, such as no general post editing, no delete-reply action beyond hiding, and limited scheduling outside YouTube, but these are not critical for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?