Skip to main content
Glama

Schedule picked Rush cards

schedule_rush_lineup

Turns selected Rush cards into a dated posting lineup and returns a draft automation to review; no post is published until you approve it.

Instructions

Turn Rush cards you have already dealt into a dated plan. This is the only way to get a Rush pick onto a calendar — resolve_rush_item records a verdict but builds nothing, and create_automation invents its own content instead of taking yours.

PUBLISHES NOTHING. It returns a draft automation: no video is rendered and no post exists until publish_automation is called on the id it hands back. That makes this safe to call before showing the user anything.

The whole flow, in order:

  1. get_rush_feed — deal cards.

  2. schedule_rush_lineup — send the ones you want (this tool). Do this BEFORE step 3: if the plan is refused, the deck is left exactly as it was, whereas resolving first would close cards for a run that never existed.

  3. resolve_rush_item with 'keep' for each card you sent, and 'skip' for the rest, to clear the hand.

  4. get_automation — read the lineup back and show the user the dates and copy.

  5. publish_automation — only after the user has explicitly approved. This is irreversible.

Dates are worked out for you: it spreads the items from startDate over postTimes and returns the exact instant each one landed on, so you never compute a timestamp yourself.

ALWAYS PASS timezone. It is the one default that will embarrass you. Omitted, the zone saved on the account is used, and accounts often have none saved — which falls back to UTC, so an evening slot for a user in Asia/Kolkata is planned at half past one in the morning. Pass the user's IANA zone every time unless they actually want UTC.

startDate defaults to tomorrow, which is usually right. postTimes defaults to a spread that fits the items into the days available; it is a reasonable shape but it knows nothing about when this audience is awake, so prefer the times the workspace already posts at — list_posts shows the existing cadence. Note the plan-window check is on startDate only, so a long run can still spread past the date the plan is paid through.

Refusals worth knowing before you call: a lineup may hold at most 200 items; postTimes cannot be longer than the plan's reels-per-day (read reelsPerDay from whoami); and a run cannot start after the date the plan is paid through, so check periodEnd in whoami if the user wants something far out.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoLabel for the run. Defaults to a dated one.
itemsYesThe picked cards, in the order you want them posted.
timezoneNoIANA zone the postTimes are read in, e.g. 'Asia/Kolkata'. Send it. A zone saved on the account takes precedence (so a trip cannot silently re-time somebody's calendar), but when none is saved this is all there is, and omitting it means UTC.
postTimesNoTimes of day, HH:MM, applied to every day of the run. Deduplicated and sorted. Defaults to a spread that fits.
startDateNoFirst day, YYYY-MM-DD, in the account's scheduling zone. Defaults to tomorrow.
accountIdsYesConnected account ids from list_connected_accounts. Every item is published to all of them. Required here even though the plan itself would accept none, because a lineup with no accounts cannot be published and there is nothing useful to do with it.
workspaceIdNoWorkspace to act in. Defaults to the active one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds that nothing is published, a draft automation is returned, and the deck is left intact on refusal, which is the real safety story for a write tool. It also discloses concrete refusal conditions (200-item cap, postTimes vs reelsPerDay, periodEnd window).

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?

Long, but front-loaded with the key constraints (publishes nothing, flow order) and every sentence carries a decision the agent must make. The flow list and refusal list are dense but not padded; a little tightening is possible but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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?

Covers purpose, ordering, refusal conditions, defaults, and the approval gate for a complex write tool with no output schema. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning the schema lacks: timezone must be passed because the saved account zone can fall back to UTC, startDate defaults to tomorrow, postTimes knows nothing about audience wake time, and the plan-window check applies to startDate only. It stops short of documenting every item field, but the important defaults are covered.

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 precise verb+resource ('Turn Rush cards you have already dealt into a dated plan') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings resolve_rush_item and create_automation by naming what each of those does instead. An agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an ordered five-step flow, states when to call this tool relative to resolve_rush_item (step 2 before step 3, with the reason: a refusal leaves the deck untouched), and names the approval precondition for publish_automation. Explicit alternatives and exclusions throughout.

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