Update a scheduled post (cannot update published posts)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes | ID of the post to update | |
| content | No | New content for the post (optional) | |
| platform | Yes | Platform the post is on | |
| mediaUrls | No | New media URLs (optional) | |
| scheduledFor | No | New scheduled time in ISO 8601 format (optional) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral limitation (cannot update published posts) but omits other key traits like whether the update is partial or full, permission requirements, or what happens to omitted optional fields. This is insufficient 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 sentence that is direct, front-loaded with the action, and includes necessary constraint context. No filler or redundant information.
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?
The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is sparse and does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether omitted optional fields are preserved or cleared), nor does it address prerequisites. The schema helps but the overall behavior remains ambiguous for a mutation tool.
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?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters with clear definitions (e.g., 'New content for the post (optional)'). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but with high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 a specific verb 'Update' and resource 'a scheduled post', clearly stating the tool's scope. The parenthetical '(cannot update published posts)' distinguishes it from potential sibling tools and prevents misuse.
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?
It provides an explicit when-not condition by stating 'cannot update published posts', which guides the agent to use it only for scheduled posts. However, it doesn't name alternatives or offer guidance on when to use this versus schedule_post or delete_post.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
