postmoderno

Add chain reply

add_reply

Idempotent

Append one self-reply to a post's chain. A retry with the same idempotency_key after a lost response returns the existing reply instead of appending again. Works while the chain has not published yet; if the chain is already scheduled the new reply is scheduled with it. Every reply is its own publish to every target account, so it counts against the monthly limits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "post_id": "<post_id>",
      "body": "<body>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "add_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	the reply text
`media`	No	images to attach
`post_id`	Yes	the post to reply under — the chain root, or any post already in the chain
`delay_sec`	No	seconds after the parent actually publishes (default 60, max 604800)
`idempotency_key`	Yes	unique key for this exact reply creation; generate once and pass unchanged on every retry

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`post`	Yes
`reused`	No
`series`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: idempotent retry semantics returning the existing reply after a lost response, interaction with an already-scheduled chain, and that each reply counts as its own publish against monthly limits per target account. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then idempotency, then scheduling, then billing impact. No filler, though the idempotency sentence is somewhat dense.

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?

With annotations, an output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description covers the behavioral essentials an agent needs: idempotency, scheduling inheritance, and quota impact. It lacks any note on failure modes or permission requirements, a minor gap given how much structured data already exists.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description reinforces idempotency_key retry semantics and touches on scheduling behavior, but adds no new detail on delay_sec, media, or post_id beyond what the schema states — proper baseline for a fully-covered schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'Append one self-reply to a post's chain' — which cleanly separates it from create_post, edit_post, and schedule_post. The 'one self-reply' wording also communicates the single-reply-per-call scope.

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 gives clear usage context: works while the chain is unpublished, and if the chain is already scheduled the reply inherits that schedule. It does not name a sibling alternative or state explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer edit_post or a top-level create_post), which keeps it below a 5.

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

All postmoderno tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?