SendIt

Create Workflow

create_workflow

Create a new automation workflow.

Workflows consist of a trigger and a sequence of steps.

Trigger types: • manual - Run on demand • schedule - Cron-based schedule • event - Triggered by SendIt events (post published, mention detected, etc.) • webhook - Triggered by external webhook • connector_event - Triggered by connector-specific events

Step types: • connector_action - Execute a connector operation • connector_operation - Alias of connector_action • agent_invoke - Run an AI agent • condition - Conditional control step (skip subsequent steps) • delay - Wait for a duration • http_request - Outbound HTTP request • transform - Transform data between steps • notify - Send notification (email, Slack, etc.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Workflow name
`steps`	Yes	Workflow steps in execution order
`active`	No	Activate workflow immediately (default: false)
`description`	No	Workflow description
`triggerType`	Yes	Trigger type
`triggerConfig`	Yes	Trigger configuration (cron expression, event type, etc.)

Schema Changelog

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

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds behavioral context by listing trigger/step types, but doesn't go into consequences like validation, idempotency, or error conditions. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points for trigger and step types, making it easy to scan. It is somewhat long but appropriate for a complex tool with many enum options. Every sentence adds information about workflow composition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the high-level structure but lacks operational details for constructing step configs (e.g., required fields for http_request, condition, transform) and triggerConfig formats (e.g., cron syntax, event names). Since config is a free-form object in the schema, the description should carry more of the burden, but it only provides type names. This leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the enum options for triggerType and step types (e.g., 'manual - Run on demand', 'schedule - Cron-based schedule'), going beyond the raw schema. It doesn't explain triggerConfig or step config structures in depth, but the high-level mapping helps.

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 'Create a new automation workflow' and explains that workflows consist of a trigger and steps. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_workflow, delete_workflow, and trigger_workflow.

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?

The description provides explicit context on when to use the tool by enumerating trigger types and step types, which covers the main usage scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or compare it with alternatives beyond the obvious create/update/delete distinction.

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?