Schedule a new social media post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Post content | |
| platform | Yes | Social media platform | |
| accountId | Yes | Account ID to post from | |
| mediaUrls | No | Optional media URLs | |
| scheduledFor | Yes | When to publish the post |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not mention authorization requirements, whether the post is immediately visible or queued, reversibility, or what happens after scheduling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it sacrifices informative content for brevity, lacking any details beyond the basic action. It is efficient but not fully earning its place given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a scheduling/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context such as scheduling constraints, permission requirements, or expected return value. The schema covers parameters but not the operational context. The bare description is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'When to publish the post'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema's descriptions carry the load. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'schedule' with the resource 'social media post', clearly indicating a single-post scheduling action. The word 'new' differentiates it from update_post, and the singular 'a' contrasts with bulk_schedule_posts. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so slightly less than perfect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus bulk_schedule_posts or how it fits into the workflow. The description simply states the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
