invoke_media_preflightChecks a post's media against its platform/content type before schedule, publish, or retry. Returns valid or the required fix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | Socializioz post ID. | |
| platform | No | Optional destination override. | |
| content_type | No | Optional feed|story|reel|video override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive guarantees, so the description's extra behavioral context of returning 'valid or the required fix' adds clarity beyond the annotations. It communicates that this is a check-only operation with an actionable result. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only preflight tool with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the validation scope and immediately states the output outcome. Every sentence adds direct value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only, one-required-parameter tool, the description captures purpose, timing, output, and effect. The schema handles all parameter documentation, and annotations handle safety behavior, so nothing needed by an agent to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no new meaning for individual parameters beyond mapping the concept of 'platform/content type' to those optional fields. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Checks'), the resource being validated ('a post's media'), and the criteria ('against its platform/content type'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling action tools by stating it is a preflight validation before schedule, publish, or retry rather than being one of those actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly identifies when to use the tool: 'before schedule, publish, or retry'. This gives clear contextual guidance without naming a sibling alternative, which is acceptable because no other sibling appears to offer a preflight validation pass. It stops short of a 5 because it does not state exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and lifecycle state, so an agent can usually pick correctly. The main ambiguity is among the profile/context tools and the approve/schedule/publish family, but the descriptions give enough state-specific detail to avoid serious misselection.
The set consistently uses an invoke_ prefix with snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun pattern. It only deviates with names like media_preflight and x_live_read, which place the verb at the end or use noun phrases.
With 33 tools, the server is well beyond the typical well-scoped range. It covers many distinct areas, but the high number of status-specific post tools and separate context/profile/workspace tools makes the surface feel bloated rather than cohesive.
The core social publishing workflow is covered well: create, edit, approve, schedule, publish, cancel, retry, and campaign planning. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete/archive for drafts, campaigns, or assets, and limited tools for inbox, comment, or broader analytics beyond the single X read gateway.