Skip to main content
Glama

SendIt

by io.github.Shree-git

Get Platform Requirements

get_platform_requirements
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get detailed content requirements for a platform.

Returns: Character limits, media specifications, rate limits, and special notes.

Call this when you need specifics like exact character counts, file size limits, or supported formats. The publish_content description has a quick reference, but this tool provides complete details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
platformYesPlatform to get requirements for

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
platformNo
textLimitNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "name": {
+      "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"
+    },
+    "textLimit": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond listing return content types, which are likely already covered by the output schema. There is no mention of side effects, data freshness, or any quirks. It meets the baseline but does not go beyond.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, then return categories, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It tells what the tool returns, when to use it, and provides a pointer to an alternative. The output schema covers the return structure, so no further detail is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with a clear enum and description ('Platform to get requirements for'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, but the schema already handles it well, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves detailed content requirements for a platform, listing specific categories such as character limits, media specifications, rate limits, and special notes. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes from publish_content by noting that tool only has a quick reference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs when to call the tool ('when you need specifics like exact character counts, file size limits, or supported formats') and mentions an alternative (publish_content) that has a quicker but less complete reference. This provides clear usage context and exclusion.

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

All SendIt toolsInspect
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