GBPly

Request a repeating post

request_create_repeating_post

Destructive

Ask the user to approve repeating one post on a schedule (weekly, every 2 weeks, monthly, yearly). Only the next occurrence is created as a scheduled post; GBPly's post policy and daily cap apply to each one. Returns an approval link.

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": {
      "profile_id": "<profile_id>",
      "frequency": "<frequency>",
      "time": "<time>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "request_create_repeating_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`time`	Yes	HH:mm in the business's own timezone.
`content`	Yes
`cta_url`	No	Required for every button type except CALL.
`weekday`	No	ISO weekday for weekly/biweekly: 1=Mon … 7=Sun. Required for weekly/biweekly.
`cta_type`	No
`end_date`	No
`end_type`	No	Default count.
`end_count`	No	Default 8 when end_type is count.
`frequency`	Yes	biweekly = every 2 weeks. Monthly/yearly repeat on the start date's day.
`image_url`	No	Public JPEG/PNG under 5MB.
`post_type`	No	Default STANDARD.
`profile_id`	Yes
`start_date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD, first possible date.
`coupon_code`	No
`event_title`	No
`event_end_date`	No
`event_end_time`	No
`skip_conflicts`	No	Skip a date when another post is already scheduled that day. Default true.
`event_start_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`event_start_time`	No	HH:mm
`terms_conditions`	No
`redeem_online_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: only the next occurrence is created as a scheduled post, GBPly's post policy and daily cap apply to each occurrence, and the call returns an approval link. It stops short of covering what happens after approval, link expiry, or whether rejecting the request cleans anything up.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cadence, then the scheduling/policy behavior, then the return value. No filler or restatement of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The scheduling and policy semantics are well covered, but for a 23-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on the many optional/conditional fields (weekday, end conditions, CTA requirements, event/offer parameters) needed to call it correctly.

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?

With 23 parameters and only 52% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it says nothing about any parameter. The only parameter-adjacent content is the frequency enumeration, which the schema already documents; interactions like weekday being required for weekly/biweekly, end_type/end_count/end_date coupling, skip_conflicts, or the EVENT/OFFER-specific fields go unmentioned.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: request approval for a repeating post on a named schedule (weekly, every 2 weeks, monthly, yearly). The word 'repeating' plus 'only the next occurrence is created' separates it from request_create_post, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (use this for recurring posts rather than one-off posts), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites such as needing an existing profile, and no pointer to request_create_post for a single post or request_update_post for changes.

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

All GBPly 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?