Skip to main content
Glama

SendIt

by io.github.Shree-git

Retry Scheduled Post

retry_scheduled_post

Retry a failed scheduled post, optionally editing the content, narrowing to failed platforms, rescheduling, or publishing immediately.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoCompatibility alias for postId.
textNoReplacement post text for the retry.
postIdNoScheduled post ID.
team_idNoTeam ID to operate in team scope. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, uses personal scope.
mediaUrlNoReplacement public HTTPS media URL for the retry.
mediaUrlsNoReplacement public HTTPS media URLs for the retry.
platformsNoOptional subset of failed platforms to retry.
publishNowNoPublish the retry immediately instead of scheduling it.
scheduleIdNoCompatibility alias for postId.
scheduledAtNoNew ISO 8601 retry time. Required unless publishNow is true.
firstCommentNoOptional replacement Instagram first comment.
pinterestBoardIdNoOptional replacement Pinterest board ID.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "postId"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "scheduleId"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "id"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating optional behaviors (editing content, narrowing platforms, rescheduling, publishing immediately) that go beyond the annotations. It does not, however, disclose detailed side effects like whether the original post is modified or a new attempt is created.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists the optional modifications. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the rich schema and annotations, the description omits critical usage requirements: it does not clarify that an identifier (id, postId, or scheduleId) is needed, nor does it describe the expected output or return value. Since there is no output schema, this information would help complete the picture. The description covers the main function but leaves these gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description provides a high-level summary mapping to parameters (text/mediaUrl for content, platforms for narrowing, scheduledAt for rescheduling, publishNow for immediate publishing), but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already 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 tool's purpose: 'Retry a failed scheduled post' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning optional actions like editing content, narrowing to failed platforms, rescheduling, or publishing immediately, which differentiates it from edit_scheduled_post or trigger_scheduled_post.

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 phrase 'failed scheduled post' establishes clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance that would earn a 5.

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