create_postsCreate and schedule up to 25 social posts in one call, with per-item results so successful posts are created even if others fail.
Create up to 25 posts in one call, for example a week of scheduled content. Each item takes the same fields as create_post. Failures are per item: the response lists ok/error for each, and the successful ones are created even when others fail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| posts | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which only declare it is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent write), the description discloses the crucial non-atomic failure model: 'Failures are per item' and 'the successful ones are created even when others fail'. That partial-success semantics is exactly what an agent needs to know before retrying or reporting results, and it is not derivable from any structured field.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: capacity, item-field reference, and failure semantics. The cap and the batch framing are front-loaded, and there is no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape ('the response lists ok/error for each'), which covers the main completeness gap for a batch mutation. Rate limits, permissions, and the relationship to bulk_posts are unaddressed, but for a tool with annotation coverage of the safety profile this is largely sufficient.
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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a complex array of nested post objects, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by delegating item-field semantics to create_post and stating the 25-item cap, but the nested target/settings/deliveryMode structure is only documented inside the schema itself, so the description adds limited independent meaning.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource with a batch limit: 'Create up to 25 posts in one call', and it explicitly anchors item fields to the sibling create_post ('Each item takes the same fields as create_post'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other bulk-oriented sibling bulk_posts, so an agent still has to guess between those two.
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?
'for example a week of scheduled content' gives a concrete usage scenario for the batch case, implying when a bulk call is preferable to repeated create_post calls. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing away from the sibling bulk_posts, which appears to overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.