Echoly

Add a post

create_post

Add a social post for a brand. By default it goes to all of the brand's connected accounts and waits for the person's approval in Echoly (returns status 'pending' and a url to review it). Brands set to automatic approval may schedule it right away if it passes their checks.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	A short label for the type of post, e.g. daily-stats or announcement.
`text`	No	The post text. X allows 280 characters; Telegram captions with images 1,024. Leave out when sending thread.
`brand`	No	Brand name or id from list_brands. Optional when the workspace has one brand.
`draft`	No	true: save as a draft without asking for approval yet.
`facts`	No	The numbers and facts the text relies on, e.g. {"newPlayers": 120}. Automatic approval holds posts whose numbers aren't here.
`thread`	No	A thread instead of text: 2–10 posts. X, Bluesky and Mastodon publish them as replies to each other (each within 280 / 300 / 500 characters); Telegram and Discord get them as one message. Every post counts toward the X limit.
`accounts`	No	Where to post: account ids, platforms ("x", "telegram", "bluesky", "mastodon", "discord") or @handles. Default: all connected accounts of the brand.
`image_urls`	No	Up to 4 https image URLs (JPEG, PNG, GIF or WebP, 5 MB each).
`publish_at`	No	When to post: ISO 8601 with offset (2026-11-01T09:00:00+08:00), or YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm in the workspace time zone. Leave out to post as soon as it's approved.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description goes further by disclosing the approval workflow, the returned status 'pending' with a review URL, and the conditional case where automatic-approval brands may schedule immediately if checks pass. It does not cover failure modes or what a rejected post returns, keeping it from 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the default routing, with the parenthetical return detail kept tight. Slight redundancy in restating the default account targeting that the schema's `accounts` description already covers.

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 9-parameter, zero-required creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things the schema cannot: the default targeting and the asynchronous approval outcome including the returned status and review URL. It leaves image/thread interaction and error behavior undocumented, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 every parameter already carries a detailed description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces two defaults (accounts = all connected accounts, publish_at omitted = post on approval) but adds essentially no meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a social post for a brand') and immediately scopes the default target (all of the brand's connected accounts), which is enough to separate it from siblings like get_post, list_posts and cancel_post. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it lands just under the top mark.

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?

The description explains the default path (post to all connected accounts, wait for approval) which implicitly tells the agent this is the general-purpose creation tool, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions draft vs. publish_at vs. accounts trade-offs as selection criteria. Usage has to be inferred from the schema.

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

All Echoly 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?