schedule_content_publishSet a future publish date and time for a content item; the scheduler automatically publishes it when the time arrives.
Set a future publish date/time for a content item. The scheduler automatically publishes it when the time arrives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_id | Yes | Content item ID,required | |
| publish_at | Yes | ISO 8601 datetime when to publish (e.g. 2026-03-24T15:00:00Z),required |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety/idempotency profile is already covered. The description adds real behavioral context by explaining that the scheduler publishes automatically when the time arrives, but omits permissions needed, what happens if a schedule already exists, and how to undo (cancel_scheduled_publish).
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the automatic-publish consequence follows immediately.
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?
For a two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the deferred-execution behavior adequately. It still leaves gaps around permissions, overwrite/duplicate scheduling semantics, and how the schedule is cancelled or listed, which the sibling set makes relevant.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents content_id and the ISO 8601 format with an example, so baseline is 3. The description only restates that the date must be in the future, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Set a future publish date/time for a content item.' The 'future' qualifier implicitly separates it from publish_content (immediate) and cancel_scheduled_publish, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by 'future publish date/time' and the note that the scheduler publishes automatically, which tells the agent this is for deferred publishing rather than immediate release. However, it never names alternatives like publish_content or cancel_scheduled_publish, nor states when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.