Skip to main content
Glama

Postkey: Instagram DM Automation and Comment-to-DM

One request waiting for approval

postkey_get_approval
Read-onlyIdempotent

Postkey: Gets one request of THIS connection that waits, or waited, for a person (a reply, turning an automation on), by the request_id the held call answered with: its status (waiting, approved, rejected, lapsed or failed), when it lapses, and what happened. Use it to follow up one held call before saying it was sent; a request of another connection is refused not_found. A post held in Posts > Approvals has no request_id: posts that wait are in postkey_list_waiting_for_approval.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
approval_idYesThe request_id a held call answered with.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesfalse: refused (isError; code, message, guide_topic, url); no change.
requestNorequest_id, tool, what (untrusted), status (waiting, approved, rejected, lapsed, failed), asked_at, answered_at, lapses_at, outcome.
untrusted_noteNoPresent when outside text is wrapped as { untrusted: true, text }.
approve_in_postkeyNoWhere a person approves.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / ok / description
      Previous value: -"false: refused (isError true; code, message, guide_topic, url), nothing changed."New value: +"false: refused (isError; code, message, guide_topic, url); no change."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "approve_in_postkey": {
      +      "description": "Where a person approves.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "ok": {
      +      "description": "false: refused (isError true; code, message, guide_topic, url), nothing changed.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "request": {
      +      "description": "request_id, tool, what (untrusted), status (waiting, approved, rejected, lapsed, failed), asked_at, answered_at, lapses_at, outcome.",
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "untrusted_note": {
      +      "description": "Present when outside text is wrapped as { untrusted: true, text }.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "ok"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description still adds real behavior: the full status vocabulary (waiting, approved, rejected, lapsed, failed), the lapse horizon, and the not_found refusal for a request belonging to another connection. It does not describe output shape or timing, but the output schema carries that.

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 verb and scope, and every clause carries information an agent needs, including the sibling redirect at the end. The first sentence is long and comma-heavy, which costs some readability, but there is no filler to strip.

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 single-parameter read with an output schema and full annotations, nothing material is missing: identity provenance, status set, lapse timing, cross-connection refusal, and the alternative tool for the analogous-but-different case. An agent can call this and interpret the result without further guidance.

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% and the description's phrasing ('by the request_id the held call answered with') duplicates the schema's own parameter description rather than adding new meaning. It does helpfully cement that approval_id is the same value the held call returned, but that equivalence is already stated in the schema.

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 and resource ('Gets one request ... that waits, or waited, for a person') and scopes it to 'THIS connection', which immediately separates it from the account-wide sibling. The clarifying gloss '(a reply, turning an automation on)' makes the abstract concept of 'request' concrete enough to distinguish from get_post and get_automation.

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?

States an explicit when-to-use ('follow up one held call before saying it was sent') and an explicit when-not plus alternative: posts held in Posts > Approvals have no request_id and belong to postkey_list_waiting_for_approval. That is exactly the routing decision an agent needs, including the trap of passing the wrong identifier.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources