Skip to main content
Glama

aidelly

by io.github.wilzer

aidelly_list_scheduled_posts

Read-onlyIdempotent

GET /scheduled-posts — list scheduled posts including compose-time auto-recycle entries and approval state. Public API preview.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
limitNo
queryNoOptional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
cursorNo
statusNo
brand_idNo
campaignIdNo
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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 512,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds context about the 'Public API preview' status and the inclusion of auto-recycle entries, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or other operational details.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and resource, then adds key distinguishing details. There is no fluff, and every phrase contributes value.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently detailed. It does not describe the response format, pagination semantics beyond the schema defaults, or what auto-recycle entries are. Users would need to guess at parameter usage and expected data.

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 22%, with only query and workspace_id having descriptions. The tool description does not compensate, failing to explain the meaning of parameters like brand_id, campaignId, status, or the to/from date range.

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 'list scheduled posts' with a specific HTTP method and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it includes 'compose-time auto-recycle entries and approval state', which sets it apart from generic list_posts or list_pending_approvals.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The mention of auto-recycle entries and approval state implies it is for retrieving scheduled posts with those details, but no explicit comparisons or exclusions to sibling tools are provided.

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