uplika

Reply to a post

reply

Destructive

Reply to a post or to a reply. Leave replyTo empty to reply to the post itself; pass a reply id from list_replies to nest a reply under that reply.Like publish, this returns before the reply is live. Call get_post with the returned id to see the final status and link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`content`	Yes
`replyTo`	No	Reply id from list_replies. Omit to reply to the post itself.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the reply is not immediately live and instructs the agent to call get_post with the returned id to verify final status and link. This adds meaningful async behavior context beyond the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, then provides nesting instructions and the async caveat. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool, the description covers the key behaviors: nested replies, the async return, and how to verify the outcome. It does not describe auth requirements or exact return shape, but those are not essential given the stated verification workflow.

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?

The description adds important meaning to replyTo by explaining when to omit it and where to source the reply id from. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates for the missing semantics on content, which is self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the operation: reply to a post or to an existing reply. It also distinguishes the nesting behavior and references list_replies, making the tool's purpose immediately recognizable among siblings.

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?

The description gives clear procedural guidance: leave replyTo empty for a top-level reply, or pass a reply id from list_replies to nest. It also references publish and get_post for context, though it does not explicitly state when to choose reply over publish.

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?