SendIt

Schedule Content

schedule_content

Schedule content for future publishing. Same media rules as publish_content apply.

• mediaUrl must be a public HTTPS URL — call create_upload_session if user shares a file in chat. • Content is validated at schedule time, not publish time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes
`team_id`	No	Team ID to schedule as team. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, schedules from personal accounts.
`timezone`	No	Optional IANA timezone for queue scheduling and recurring series metadata.
`platforms`	Yes	Target platforms - ensure content matches each platform's requirements
`scoreGate`	No	Optional forward-compatible minimum content score threshold for advanced scheduling flows.
`recurrence`	No	Optional forward-compatible structured recurrence definition.
`bypassToken`	No	Optional forward-compatible bypass token returned by advanced scheduling score-gate checks.
`scheduleMode`	No	Optional forward-compatible scheduling mode. 'queue' asks SendIt to place the post in the next available queue slot.
`scheduledTime`	Yes	ISO 8601 datetime in UTC (e.g., 2025-01-15T14:30:00Z)
`recurrenceRule`	No	Optional forward-compatible RRULE string for recurring schedules.
`targetAccounts`	No	Optional advanced scheduling target account IDs. Legacy handlers may ignore this until advanced scheduling is enabled.
`mediaAttachments`	No	Optional forward-compatible media asset attachments to associate with the scheduled post.
`platformOverrides`	No	Optional forward-compatible per-platform overrides keyed by platform ID.
`recurrenceEndDate`	No	Optional forward-compatible ISO 8601 end date for recurrence.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`isError`	No
`success`	No
`platforms`	No
`scheduleId`	No
`errorMessage`	No
`scheduledTime`	No
`followUpSuggestions`	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": {
+    "errorMessage": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "followUpSuggestions": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "isError": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "platforms": {
+      "items": {
+        "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"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "scheduleId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scheduledTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that content is validated at schedule time (not publish time) and that mediaUrl must be a public HTTPS URL. These are important behavioral traits not captured by the annotations (which only indicate mutation and non-idempotency). It doesn't describe return values or side effects, but this is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence and two bullets. It is front-loaded with the main intent and every line adds value. No fluff or redundancy, achieving high clarity in minimal words.

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 rich input/output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the essential context: future scheduling, media URL constraints, and validation timing. It doesn't explain every parameter (correctly left to the schema) but could have briefly noted the existence of advanced scheduling siblings to avoid selection confusion. Overall, it is complete for most agent invocation scenarios.

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 93%, so the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter. The description's only parameter-related note ('mediaUrl must be a public HTTPS URL — call create_upload_session...') is essentially a repeat of the schema's own mediaUrl description, adding no new meaning. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Schedule content') and its purpose ('for future publishing'), which distinguishes it from publish_content (immediate publishing). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like schedule_content_advanced or schedule_multilang_content, leaving some ambiguity about which scheduling variant to choose.

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 clear usage context: use for future publishing, and it gives a specific actionable rule for file uploads ('call create_upload_session if user shares a file in chat'). It also references sibling publish_content rules, but it lacks explicit exclusions or guidance on when to use alternatives like schedule_content_advanced.

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?