SendIt

Delete Published Post

delete_post

Destructive

Delete a published post from a platform. Supports: X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Threads, YouTube, Pinterest, Bluesky, Mastodon, Telegram.

Provide the post ID (database ID returned when published through SendIt), the platform post ID, or the post URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`postId`	Yes	Post identifier: database ID, platform post ID, or post URL
`team_id`	No	Team ID to operate in team scope. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, uses personal scope.
`platform`	Yes	Platform to delete from

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`message`	No
`success`	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": {
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies accepted identifier formats (database ID, platform post ID, or URL) and lists supported platforms. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it doesn't detail side effects like whether deletion is reversible or affects analytics.

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 short and to the point: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second paragraph explains the accepted identifiers. No unnecessary details or fluff, and it's front-loaded with the most important info.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 platforms, destructive action, 3 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it deletes, where, and how to specify the target. The team_id parameter is not mentioned in the prose, but the schema covers it, so this is adequate. A slightly higher score is prevented by not explicitly warning about the permanence of the deletion, though annotations do flag destructiveness.

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% with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the postId can be a database ID returned from SendIt, a platform post ID, or a URL, which enriches the schema's brief 'Post identifier' description. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 action ('Delete a published post') and the resource ('from a platform'), with a specific scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_scheduled_post or delete_library_item. The supported platform list further clarifies its breadth.

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 gives clear context: it's for deleting already-published posts, and mentions the database ID from SendIt, which implies this is not for scheduled posts. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use delete_scheduled_post for scheduled items' or mention any exclusions, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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?