AutomateSocials

Plan a campaign

plan_campaign

Plans a run of posts around one goal: what each post is for, its theme and its angle, spread over the days the project posts on. It writes nothing and publishes nothing - the plan is one line per post, to be read and changed before anything is written. Use this when the user wants a month of content, a launch, or anything with more than a couple of posts behind one idea.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "goal": "<goal>",
      "posts": "<posts>"
    },
    "name": "plan_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	Yes	What the campaign is for, in the user's words.
`name`	Yes	What to call it.
`notes`	No	Anything else the planner should know.
`offer`	No	What is being promoted, if anything.
`posts`	Yes	How many posts, up to 60.
`themes`	No	Subjects it should cover.
`sources`	No	Pages the campaign is based on - articles, a product page, a blog. They are read here and kept in the knowledge base, and every post of the campaign is then written from what they say. Pass them whenever the user says the campaign is about their own content; you do not need to read anything first.
`audience`	No	Who it is for, if not the usual audience.
`leadDays`	No	How many days before a post goes out it is written. Default 2.
`startsOn`	No	ISO date for the first post. Defaults to tomorrow.
`useSlots`	No	Publish into the project's own calendar slots instead of at a fixed hour, taking the next free one on or after each planned day. Prefer this when the project has slots.
`platforms`	No	Which platforms. Defaults to every connected account.
`timeOfDay`	No	HH:MM in the project timezone. Defaults to 09:00.
`daysOfWeek`	No	Days to post on, 0 is Sunday. Defaults to every day.
`withImages`	No	Generate a picture for each post. This costs credits.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value by explaining the plan is a reviewable draft ('to be read and changed before anything is written'). However, 'It writes nothing' sits awkwardly against readOnlyHint=false — the agent cannot tell from this whether a campaign/plan record is persisted, which matters before calling it. That ambiguity is the main gap.

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, each earning its place: purpose, output/side-effect, then the trigger. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the 'writes nothing' caveat comes before the usage guidance.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description usefully covers what comes back ('one line per post') and that the result is meant to be reviewed and edited. What is missing is whether the plan is persisted server-side and where it can later be edited, which the agent needs to set expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, including rich notes on sources, useSlots and credit costs for withImages, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only gestures at parameters indirectly ('spread over the days the project posts on'), which maps loosely to daysOfWeek/useSlots but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Plans a run of posts') plus the actual output shape ('one line per post') and the scope of the input ('around one goal'). It also draws the boundary against the write/publish siblings by declaring 'It writes nothing and publishes nothing', so an agent can separate it from create_post and write_campaign_posts without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit positive triggers: 'a month of content, a launch, or anything with more than a couple of posts behind one idea'. That is concrete enough to route on. It never names the alternative tool or states when not to use it (e.g. a single post → create_post), so it stops short of full guidance.

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

All AutomateSocials 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?