Marketing Assistant MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Reject draft post

reject_draft

Reject a draft to make it unpublishable. Use it to recover drafts stuck in 'publishing' after a failed publish, provided the post was not sent to X.

Instructions

Mark a draft as rejected. Rejected drafts cannot be published. Also usable to reconcile a draft stuck in "publishing" after a crashed publish_draft call once you have verified the post did NOT go out on X. If live post ids were already recorded (partial thread publish), call delete_published_draft instead.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "reject_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Draft id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral consequence (rejected drafts cannot be published) and specifies the reconciliation use case. However, it does not mention whether rejection is reversible, what the response looks like, or any permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second introduces the reconciliation use case, and the third provides an alternative. No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, an edge case, and a sibling alternative. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but the absence is not critical for selection/invocation. Slightly more would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Draft id.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Mark a draft as rejected') and clearly states the consequence ('Rejected drafts cannot be published'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like approve_draft and publish_draft, and even differentiates from delete_published_draft.

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?

Provides explicit usage context for a special scenario: reconciling a draft stuck in 'publishing' after a crashed publish_draft call, with a clear condition ('once you have verified the post did NOT go out on X'). Also names an alternative tool (delete_published_draft) when live post ids were recorded, giving clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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