Skip to main content
Glama

aidelly

by io.github.wilzer

aidelly_bulk_create_posts

Create up to 50 scheduled posts in one call. Each item takes the same shape as aidelly_create_post. Returns HTTP 201 when every item was accepted and 207 when some failed, with a per-item results array carrying index, status, and either the created post or an error — inspect it rather than assuming the whole batch succeeded. Acceptance is not delivery: poll aidelly_get_post for each created id. Rate limit is charged per post, not per request, so a 20-post batch costs 20 write units — it saves round trips, not quota. The whole batch is rejected before anything is written if it would exceed your daily scheduling limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional body override for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
postsYesPosts to create. Max 50 per request.
queryNoOptional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
brand_idNo
workspace_idNoWorkspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content.
idempotency_keyYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / posts / description
      Previous value: -"Posts to create. Each item matches aidelly_create_post. Max 50 per call."New value: +"Posts to create. Max 50 per request."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "posts",
-  "idempotency_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "idempotency_key",
+  "posts"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description details HTTP 201/207 partial-failure semantics, per-item results with index/status/error, acceptance-vs-delivery polling, and pre-write rejection when exceeding daily limits. This significantly adds context without contradicting any annotation.

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 information-dense, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds behavior or usage value. It remains readable despite covering status codes, polling, rate limits, and quota rejection.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return formats (201/207), per-item result structure, and follow-up behavior. Combined with schema coverage 67%, the description covers the essential invocation and post-call expectations.

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?

The schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description points to 'the same shape as aidelly_create_post' as a reference for item fields. It does not add new meaning to idempotency_key or workspace_id, but the pointer to the sibling is helpful.

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 opens with 'Create up to 50 scheduled posts in one call,' which names the specific action, resource, and scale. This clearly distinguishes it from single-post siblings like aidelly_create_post and aidelly_create_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?

It explains the batch context, notes the rate limit is charged per post ('saves round trips, not quota'), and directs follow-up polling for each created id. It does not explicitly state when to choose bulk over looping single-post calls, but the trade-off is clear.

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

All aidelly 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

C2.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in approvals and post updates. For example, aidelly_action_post_approval and aidelly_post_approvals_id_action both handle approval actions, while aidelly_get_approvals and aidelly_list_pending_approvals appear to serve similar listing functions. The proliferation of HTTP-route-style names with generic prefixes (get_approvals_id, patch_posts_id) further obscures distinctions.

Naming Consistency1/5

The tool set mixes clean verb_noun names (create_post, list_posts) with HTTP-method-plus-path names (get_approvals_id, patch_posts_id, post_analytics_insights). There is no consistent pattern, and 'post' as a verb collides with the content post noun, creating confusion. The inconsistent conventions make it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 124 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP server scope and the calibration threshold (50+ is extreme). Even for a comprehensive platform API, such a large surface overwhelms agents and makes selection impractical. The count is a severe mismatch for a usable MCP tool set.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering CRUD for posts, drafts, scheduled posts, tasks, reports, webhooks, workspaces, e-commerce stores, and many more. Advanced features like approvals, repurpose jobs, and content automations are also represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit delete for regular posts, only cancel), but the domain is well covered overall.

Resources