Skip to main content
Glama

aidelly

by io.github.wilzer

aidelly_list_drafts

Read-onlyIdempotent

List workspace drafts with optional platform filtering. Drafts are saved as work-in-progress content and never publish.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNoOptional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
cursorNo
offsetNo
brand_idNo
platformNo
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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 512,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / platform / description
      Removed value: -"Platform name to filter by (e.g., 'twitter', 'instagram')."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining drafts are saved as work-in-progress and never publish. This is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No filler or redundant content.

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 that this is a list operation with rich annotations and a clear title, the description is largely complete. It explains the core behavior and the key differentiator (drafts never publish). However, it does not mention pagination, return format, or filtering beyond platform, leaving minor gaps. Still, it is sufficient for a simple list 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?

Schema description coverage is only 29% (workspace_id and query have descriptions). The description only adds meaning for the `platform` parameter via 'optional platform filtering'. Other parameters like limit, offset, cursor, and brand_id are not described or contextualized, leaving the agent without sufficient parameter semantics for a list operation with pagination.

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 ('List') and the resource ('workspace drafts'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts and list_scheduled_posts by noting drafts are work-in-progress and never publish. This is a specific verb+resource with useful scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: if you need drafts, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer (e.g., get_draft for a single draft, list_posts for published content). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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