Pith - Instagram Publishing

Approve / reject / edit / schedule a draft

update_draft

Destructive

The approval-inbox verb. action=approve (optionally with schedule_at 'HH:mm' in the account's timezone), reject, edit (requires overlay_lines and/or overlay_spec; implies approval), unschedule (clears a pending schedule), or convert_to_reel (Pro plan). Terminal drafts (published/rejected/failed) cannot be changed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes
`handle`	No	Instagram handle (with or without @). Omit for your default account.
`reason`	No	reject only: why, in the owner's words. Stored on the draft and fed back into the next generation.
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the business owner's goal for their Instagram presence. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include personal data, credentials, or the text of a draft. Example (20 words): "Reviewing the pending drafts before approving today's story, checking the caption matches the photo the owner expects."
`draft_id`	Yes
`schedule_at`	No	'HH:mm' in the tenant's timezone — schedules publish when approving.
`overlay_spec`	No	Structured overlay spec from the composite editor (version 1).
`overlay_lines`	No	Replacement story text lines (edit action).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / reason

Added value: +{
+  "description": "reject only: why, in the owner's words. Stored on the draft and fed back into the next generation.",
+  "maxLength": 500,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real context: edit 'implies approval', unschedule clears a pending schedule, convert_to_reel is gated by plan, and published/rejected/failed drafts are immutable. It does not state permission requirements or what the call returns, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

One tight paragraph, front-loaded with the tool's role, then the action enumeration, then the terminal-state constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers actions, conditional requirements, plan gating, and immutability, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves the caller without any sense of the response or post-mutation state, which is the remaining gap.

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 75%, and the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: schedule_at only applies to approve, overlay_lines/overlay_spec are required for edit, and unschedule clears an existing schedule. This is meaningful value beyond the per-field descriptions, though a couple of parameters (handle, reason) get no extra framing.

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 verb and resource ('the approval-inbox verb') and then enumerates every accepted action value (approve, reject, edit, unschedule, convert_to_reel) with its own qualifier. An agent can tell this apart from publish_draft and edit_schedule without opening the schema.

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?

Per-action preconditions are spelled out (approve optionally takes schedule_at, edit requires overlay_lines and/or overlay_spec, convert_to_reel is Pro-only) plus a state exclusion (terminal drafts cannot be changed). What is missing is explicit routing against siblings such as publish_draft or edit_schedule, so alternatives are implied rather than named.

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

All Pith - Instagram Publishing tools Inspect

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

Need Help?