invoke_reject_postRejects a PENDING_APPROVAL post and moves its lifecycle to CANCELLED without deleting content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Optional rejection reason stored with the decision. | |
| post_id | Yes | Socializioz post ID. |
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 signal readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful nuance by explicitly stating the lifecycle transition and emphasizing that content is not deleted, which helps reconcile the destructiveHint. It does not fully explore irreversibility or side effects, but it adds value beyond the structured annotations.
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?
A single sentence conveys the core action, the applicable state, the resulting state, and the key non-destructive guarantee. The information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.
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 two-parameter state-transition tool with annotations covering read-only and idempotency behavior, the description is sufficient. It answers what, when, and what happens, while the input schema covers the parameter details. No critical call-affecting information 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 description coverage is 100%: post_id and reason are already well documented in the input schema. The description's 'PENDING_APPROVAL post' provides context about the affected resource, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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?
States a specific action (rejects), a specific resource state (PENDING_APPROVAL post), and a clear outcome (moves lifecycle to CANCELLED). The clarification 'without deleting content' further distinguishes it from destructive actions and nearby workflow tools.
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 clearly identifies the intended context: only PENDING_APPROVAL posts should be rejected, and the result is a lifecycle move to CANCELLED. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the precondition is concrete enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.
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.