SendIt

AI Generate & Publish

publish_ai

Destructive

Generate AI content and publish it in a single step.

Combines generate_content + publish_content into one call. First generates platform-optimized content using AI, then publishes to the specified platforms.

Same platform requirements as publish_content apply.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prompt`	No	Creative prompt for AI content generation
`hashtags`	No
`mediaUrl`	No	Media URL for the post
`strictAi`	No
`mediaType`	No	Media type hint
`mediaUrls`	No	Multiple media URLs for carousel
`platforms`	Yes	Target platforms to generate content for and publish to
`generation`	No
`contentOverrides`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive/write operation. The description adds the sequencing (generate then publish) and the combined call behavior, but doesn't disclose side effects, error handling, or actual platform requirements. Minimal extra value beyond annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds relevant information without unnecessary fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a complex tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description is too brief: it doesn't explain return values, failure behavior, whether publishing requires approval, or what the 'same platform requirements' actually entail. Significant gaps remain.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description only mentions 'specified platforms' without adding meaning to any specific parameters. With 56% schema description coverage, several parameters (hashtags, strictAi, generation, contentOverrides) remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 generates AI content and publishes it in a single step, explicitly combining generate_content and publish_content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_content or publish_content alone.

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?

It explains the combined nature and references 'same platform requirements as publish_content,' giving some context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if review before publishing is needed).

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?