Skip to main content
Glama
adaptlypost

AdaptlyPost

Official
by adaptlypost
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Retry Failed Platforms

retry_failed_platforms

Retry publishing for failed platforms of a specific post. Resets status to PENDING and reattempts with the same content after fixing the cause.

Instructions

Re-queue publishing for a post's FAILED platforms. Only rows with status FAILED whose id is in platformIds are reset to PENDING and retried with the same content; other ids are ignored, and with none matching the call fails with "No failed platforms to retry". The post moves to PUBLISHING and the retry is asynchronous, so check list_post_results for the outcome. Get platformIds (not platform names) and each errorMessage from list_post_results first; retry once the cause is fixed (reconnected account, replaced media), not for a platform-side restriction, which will just fail again. Content cannot change on retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPost ID whose platforms failed
platformIdsYesplatformId values of FAILED rows from list_post_results (not platform names). At least one

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoAn object with postId, queuedPlatforms (platforms re-queued for publishing), and isScheduled: false. Outcomes arrive asynchronously in list_post_results.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Post ID"New value: +"Post ID whose platforms failed"
    • changedInput schema / properties / platformIds / description
      Previous value: -"Failed platform IDs to retry"New value: +"platformId values of FAILED rows from list_post_results (not platform names). At least one"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / result / description
      Previous value: -"The retry outcome for the requested platform IDs as returned by the AdaptlyPost API."New value: +"An object with postId, queuedPlatforms (platforms re-queued for publishing), and isScheduled: false. Outcomes arrive asynchronously in list_post_results."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals key behaviors: only FAILED rows are reset, other ids are ignored, failure condition if none match, post moves to PUBLISHING, retry is asynchronous, and content cannot change. These are critical behavioral details that annotations do not capture.

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?

The description is compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core action, then adds conditions, async behavior, prerequisites, and retry criteria in a logical flow. No redundant sentences; every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: operation, conditions, error case, async behavior, dependency on list_post_results, retry criteria, and immutability of content. The output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema already fully documents both parameters (id and platformIds) with clear descriptions, including the requirement that platformIds come from FAILED rows of list_post_results. The description reinforces this and adds context about the retry logic and source, but does not introduce new parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description adds a small extra value by tying the parameters to the retry workflow.

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?

The description states a specific action on a specific resource: 'Re-queue publishing for a post's FAILED platforms.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope (only FAILED platforms) and mentions the sibling list_post_results for gathering prerequisites, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: get platformIds and errorMessage from list_post_results first, retry only after fixing the cause (reconnected account, replaced media), and explicitly warns not to retry platform-side restrictions that will just fail again. It also notes the async nature and where to check outcome, giving clear context for appropriate use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools