SendIt

Connect Platform

connect_platform

Read-onlyIdempotent

Connect a platform dynamically by platform ID. Returns OAuth URL, webhook setup details, or credential form contract depending on the platform auth method.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`platform`	Yes	Platform ID to connect

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`setup`	No
`authUrl`	No
`isError`	No
`platform`	No
`username`	No
`connected`	No
`errorMessage`	No
`alreadyConnected`	No
`followUpSuggestions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "alreadyConnected": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "authUrl": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "connected": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "errorMessage": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "followUpSuggestions": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "isError": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "platform": {
+      "enum": [
+        "x",
+        "linkedin",
+        "linkedin-page",
+        "facebook",
+        "instagram",
+        "threads",
+        "bluesky",
+        "mastodon",
+        "nostr",
+        "youtube",
+        "tiktok",
+        "lemmy",
+        "discord",
+        "slack",
+        "telegram",
+        "pinterest",
+        "dribbble",
+        "devto",
+        "hashnode",
+        "gmb",
+        "whop",
+        "producthunt"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "setup": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "username": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the output depends on the platform's auth method. This aligns with the readOnlyHint (it returns setup info rather than performing the connection) and clarifies the tool's side-effect-free nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and wastes no words. It delivers purpose and output context efficiently.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, parameter, and output variability, and an output schema supplies return details. However, it omits guidance on choosing between this and the many dedicated connect_* tools, leaving some ambiguity in a crowded tool landscape.

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 100%, so the platform enum is already documented. The description adds meaning by indicating that the parameter value affects the output contract (OAuth URL vs webhook vs credentials), which helps the agent anticipate behavior.

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 tool connects a platform by ID and specifies the three possible return types (OAuth URL, webhook setup details, or credential form contract). This distinguishes it from sibling connect_* tools by emphasizing dynamic selection based on platform ID.

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 implies a generic dynamic connector ('dynamically by platform ID') but does not explicitly state when to use it over dedicated connect_* tools. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, so the agent must infer from the sibling list.

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

All SendIt 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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 148 tools, there is significant overlap. For example, generate_content, publish_ai, generate_post_bundle, and request_project_content all generate content; get_analytics, get_unified_analytics, get_post_analytics, get_ad_performance, and get_unified_ad_report all fetch performance metrics; and list_inbox vs list_conversations blur comment and conversation management. Descriptions help, but boundaries between tools are often unclear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_teams, create_goal, delete_post), but there are notable deviations: create_library_item vs save_to_library, publish_content vs publish_ai, schedule_content vs schedule_content_advanced, and connect_platform vs connect_connector. Mixed prefixes like 'autopilot_', 'check_', and 'get_' are fine, but overlapping verbs and a hyphen in 'connect_linkedin-page' reduce consistency.

Tool Count1/5

148 tools is extreme for any server. Even for a broad social media management platform, this is far beyond what an agent can effectively navigate. The count is unwieldy and suggests the surface should be split into multiple focused servers (publishing, analytics, connectors, workflows, etc.).

Completeness3/5

The core social publishing workflow is well covered (create, schedule, publish, edit, delete, retry), and there are extensive features for analytics, workflows, connectors, and AI agents. However, some resources have CRUD gaps: no update/delete for brand voices, no delete_project, no update/delete for Product Hunt goals, and no explicit get_workflow. These are workable but notable omissions.

Resources

Need Help?