Skip to main content
Glama

Publish a long-form Article to X

post_x_article

Publish a long-form ARTICLE to the user’s connected X (Twitter) account — X’s own long-form format, which is a different thing from a long POST. Give it a title and a body written in MARKDOWN (or plain prose) and Hermoso converts it into the DraftJS content_state structure X requires: headings, paragraphs, bulleted and numbered lists, blockquotes, bold / italic / strikethrough, links, horizontal rules, fenced code blocks and pipe tables all carry across. FORMATTING IS NEVER SILENTLY DROPPED — anything X Articles cannot represent (inline code, an inline image) REFUSES the article for free and names exactly what and why, and allowLossy: true is the explicit way to publish it as plain text anyway. THE HARD LIMIT TO PLAN AROUND: X allows only about 10 Article DRAFTS and 5 Article PUBLISHES per account per DAY, it publishes that cap nowhere, and it counts a FAILED attempt against them — so never iterate on an article by republishing it, and use publish: false to save a draft for the user to read in X’s own composer when they want to review before it goes out. This PUBLISHES immediately and PUBLICLY: show the user the full text and get an explicit yes first, because a published Article can NEVER be edited (X’s own rule — edit_x_post will refuse it) and the only remedy is to delete and republish, which costs another of the five. An Article appears in the timeline as a title card, not as body text; readers open it. Costs credits (X bills per API request, and this is three of them). Needs X connected (Settings ▸ Connectors ▸ X).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesthe article body, as markdown or plain prose. Markdown headings, lists, quotes, links, emphasis, ``` code fences and | pipe | tables | are all converted to X’s own Article structure.
hookNoWHAT ANGLE THIS POST IS BUILT ON — the single most valuable field here, and the only moment it can ever be recorded. post_performance groups on it to answer "which hooks work", and it needs 5 posts sharing ONE hook before it will call anything a winner, so REUSE THE SAME WORDING across a campaign instead of rephrasing it every time. Best of all, pass a hook id from list_hooks (e.g. "direct_callout", "mid_problem", "before_after") — those fold onto a stable key however they are spelled, so a whole brand accumulates evidence on one row. Your own wording is fine too; it just only groups when you repeat it exactly. Omitting it means this post can never vote on which hook works.
titleYesthe Article title — X requires one and refuses a draft without it. This is what shows on the timeline card.
publishNodefault true. Pass false to save it as a DRAFT in the account’s X Articles composer instead — nothing becomes public, the user can review and publish it from X, and it does not spend one of the five daily publishes.
subjectNoWHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT — the product, feature, offer or theme (e.g. "winter coat", "free trial", "founder story"). The second grouping axis in post_performance. Same rule as hook: reuse the exact wording so posts about one subject land in one group.
headingsNohow headings are rendered. “blocks” (default) uses X’s own heading block types, which is the faithful conversion. “text” renders each heading as a BOLD standalone paragraph instead: the words survive and the heading structure does not, the reply says so, and it is the documented fallback if X’s Articles service rejects heading blocks.
allowLossyNopublish even though part of the source cannot be represented on X, rendering those parts as plain text. OFF by default and it should usually stay off — silently publishing a user’s copy with formatting missing is worse than refusing and telling them.
coverImageUrlNooptional cover picture for the Article — a Hermoso render URL or an upload_file url. Must be a STILL image; X Article covers are not videos.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: PUBLISHES immediately and publicly, published Articles can NEVER be edited, failed attempts count against the daily publish cap, there are hard caps of ~10 drafts and 5 publishes per day, and publishing costs credits across three API requests. It also discloses the formatting-refusal behavior and the exact role of allowLossy. No contradiction with 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: hard limits, failure accounting, irreversibility, formatting guarantees, prerequisites, and credit costs are all operationally relevant for an agent. It front-loads the core action and the most critical constraint ('PUBLISHES immediately and PUBLICLY'), and uses capitalization sparingly for truly critical warnings. Length is justified by the tool's high-stakes, irreversible side effects.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, sparse annotations, 8 parameters, and significant irreversible side effects, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers prerequisites (X connected), side effects (public, immediate, cannot edit), rate limits (10 drafts, 5 publishes), error behavior (refuses with named reasons), parameter semantics (publish:false, allowLossy, headings fallback), and cost implications. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and to warn the user appropriately.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying the relationship between title/body and the DraftJS conversion, explicitly tying allowLossy to the refusal behavior, and explaining that publish:false avoids spending a daily publish. It doesn't add much for hook/subject/headings/coverImageUrl beyond what the schema already richly provides, but the overall parameter context is enhanced.

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 uses a specific verb ('Publish'), names the exact resource ('long-form ARTICLE to the user's connected X account'), and explicitly distinguishes it from a 'long POST', which is critical given the sibling tool post_to_x exists. It also names the output behavior (title card in timeline) and the conversion target, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it contrasts Articles with long POSTs, tells agents to use 'publish: false' when the user wants to review before it goes out, and warns not to iterate by republishing because edit_x_post will refuse. It also explains the fail-fast behavior and the delete-and-republish remedy, making the decision surface clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.

Tool Count1/5

293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.