Skip to main content
Glama

aidelly

by io.github.wilzer

aidelly_create_scheduled_post

POST /scheduled-posts — schedule a post with optional auto-recycle entries (up to 3 reposts + 3 reshares). When Team Approvals is on, member submissions land as pending. Public API preview.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional body override for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
queryNoOptional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
payloadYesPost content. `payload.media` accepts URL objects, objects with `media_id`, or bare media-library UUID strings owned by the selected workspace.
recycleNo
brand_idNo
platformYes
timezoneNoUTC
account_idNoA provider account ID from `/accounts`, or a social connection UUID selector.
scheduled_atYes
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
content_campaign_idNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Added value: +"A provider account ID from `/accounts`, or a social connection UUID selector."
    • addedInput schema / properties / payload / description
      Added value: +"Post content. `payload.media` accepts URL objects, objects with `media_id`, or bare media-library UUID strings owned by the selected workspace."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace_id / description
      Added value: +"Workspace 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."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: auto-recycle limits (up to 3 reposts + 3 reshares), pending state under Team Approvals, and 'Public API preview' indicating instability. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful side-effect information.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the HTTP method and endpoint, then the action, followed by the most important options. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex creation tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description omits response format, error conditions, and details about required parameters. The team approvals note is helpful but insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

With only 42% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains the recycle array, but leaves required fields like idempotency_key, platform, scheduled_at, and payload largely unexplained. The schema covers some parameters, but key semantics remain missing.

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 action ('schedule a post') and the resource ('/scheduled-posts'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning optional auto-recycle entries. It also adds a specific behavioral context about Team Approvals pending state.

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 context for when to use this tool: scheduling posts with optional recycle entries. It mentions a conditional behavior (Team Approvals pending) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like aidelly_create_post or aidelly_create_draft. No exclusions are given, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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