SendIt

Validate Content

validate_content

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate content against platform requirements BEFORE publishing.

USE THIS WHEN: • Unsure if content will work on target platforms • Publishing to multiple platforms with different requirements • Want to catch errors before attempting publish

Returns specific errors (e.g., 'TikTok requires video', 'Instagram needs media') and warnings (e.g., 'text close to character limit').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes
`platforms`	Yes	Platforms to validate against

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`valid`	No
`errors`	No
`isError`	No
`warnings`	No
`platforms`	No
`errorMessage`	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"
+    },
+    "errors": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "followUpSuggestions": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "isError": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "platforms": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "valid": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "warnings": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds behavioral value by stating it returns specific errors and warnings with examples, which is useful beyond the 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, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a scannable bullet list for usage scenarios. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples are illustrative without padding.

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 moderate complexity, the annotations cover safety, the schema documents parameters in detail, and an output schema exists, the description adds the essential usage context. It doesn't explain all edge cases, but it's sufficient for an agent to know when and why to invoke it.

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 says almost nothing about parameters. With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying what 'content' and 'platforms' mean, but it only refers to them generically. The examples hint at content requirements but don't explain the structure or required fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Validate content against platform requirements BEFORE publishing.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_content and preview_content by emphasizing pre-publish validation and gives concrete examples of errors/warnings.

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?

Explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' bullets provide clear contexts (unsure about platform fit, multi-platform publishing, catching errors before publish). Doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection versus siblings.

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?