Audora

Add many posts

add_posts

Add up to 30 posts to a campaign in one call: each item is add_post's (date, time, caption, hashtags, link_url, media_asset_id, angle) on one lane or several (lanes: the same post on each, one post per lane). Answers with each new post's post_id and whether it is ready to schedule, not the whole post. Use it instead of add_post when there is more than one. With schedule true (only when the artist has allowed this connection to schedule) they are scheduled in the same call: dry_run first for the cost, tell the artist, then call with confirm_cost_credits; a TikTok post also needs tiktok, the artist's own choice of who can see it. Posts the schedule refuses stay drafts, each with the reason.

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>",
      "posts": "<posts>"
    },
    "name": "add_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`posts`	Yes	The posts, at most 30 counting one per lane.
`artist`	No	Only when you are connected as a label: the roster artist this call is for — their artist_user_id from list_roster, or their exact artist name. Required for every artist tool on a label connection. Leave it out on an artist's own connection.
`tiktok`	No	The artist's choice for every TikTok post in this call, as schedule_posts' choices.tiktok. Required when scheduling a TikTok post.
`dry_run`	No	True to check the call and see what it would do, without writing anything.
`schedule`	No	Schedule them in the same call. Needs the schedule permission and confirm_cost_credits.
`campaign_id`	Yes	From list_campaigns.
`idempotency_key`	No	Send the same key if you retry, and the change happens once.
`confirm_cost_credits`	No	With schedule: the credits a dry run quoted and you told the artist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it defines the partial return value ("each new post's post_id and whether it is ready to schedule, not the whole post") and the failure mode ("Posts the schedule refuses stay drafts, each with the reason"). It adds real context about permission gating and the dry-run cost step. Minor gap: it doesn't say anything about the idempotency_key retry behavior beyond the schema's own wording, nor about credit costs when not scheduling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the alternative rule, and nearly every clause adds decision-relevant information. It is dense to the point of being run-on, with nested parentheticals ("(lanes: the same post on each, one post per lane)") that force a second read, but little is removable.

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 nested, 8-parameter batch-write tool with no output schema, the description covers the batch shape, the return contract, the scheduling permission path, cost confirmation, and partial-failure behavior. An agent has enough to construct a valid call and handle the response without further inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema does not: it enumerates the per-item fields as add_post's own set and, crucially, explains the lanes ambiguity — "lanes: the same post on each, one post per lane" — which is the single most error-prone parameter here. It also ties tiktok to the artist's own visibility choice.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource and cap: "Add up to 30 posts to a campaign in one call," then immediately names the sibling it replaces ("Use it instead of add_post when there is more than one"). An agent can distinguish it from add_post and update_post without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit routing (multi-post vs. single add_post), an ordered procedure for scheduling (dry_run for cost, tell the artist, then call with confirm_cost_credits), a precondition (only when the artist has allowed this connection to schedule), and an extra prerequisite for TikTok posts. Both when-to-use and when-not are stated.

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

All Audora 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?