upTake

Write a post

uptake_write_post

Prepares a post in upTake's Write studio, in the maker's voice and with tracked links, and returns the text for each network. Nothing is published or scheduled: the maker reviews and sends it from upTake. Counts against the maker's monthly drafts (a rewrite when the network already has a version). Takes up to a minute.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "uptake_write_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`about`	No	Items the post is about, with ids read from uptake_overview (moves_this_week, next_moment_id), uptake_ideas, or uptake_data (releases_30d, moments).
`post_id`	No	Rework an existing post instead of starting a new one.
`project`	No	Which project: its id or site (example.com) from uptake_projects. Optional when the maker has a single project.
`request`	Yes	What the post should say, as the maker would ask it in upTake (what changed, for whom, why it matters). Facts only: upTake never invents numbers.
`networks`	No	Networks to write for, up to 5: hackernews, indiehackers, producthunt, x, linkedin, reddit, changelog, bluesky, mastodon, devto, newsletter, discord. Default: the maker's networks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: no publishing or scheduling, monthly draft quota impact, rewrite behavior when a network already has a version, and an expected duration of up to a minute. These details materially help an agent understand side effects and cost.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key behavioral constraint about not publishing or scheduling and then quota/latency details. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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?

For a non-destructive write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the workflow boundaries, quota implications, latency, and return behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds general context such as maker voice, tracked links, and text returned per network, but does not add meaningful parameter-specific guidance beyond the 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 description states a specific verb and resource: it prepares a post in upTake's Write studio and returns text for each network. It also distinguishes the operation from publishing or scheduling, which is the key separation from sibling planning/publishing tools.

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 makes the intended use clear by explaining that nothing is published or scheduled and that the maker reviews and sends the post. It gives a strong usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when to choose them instead.

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

All upTake 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?