Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenTweet MCP Server

OpenTweet MCP Server

Official
by opentweetio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

opentweet_batch_schedule

DestructiveIdempotent

Schedule multiple existing tweet drafts at once by specifying post IDs and scheduled dates. Supports up to 50 tweets per batch with optional community targeting.

Instructions

Schedule multiple tweets at once. Each tweet must already exist as a draft. Provide an array of post IDs with their scheduled dates.

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": {
      "schedules": "<schedules>"
    },
    "name": "opentweet_batch_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schedulesYesArray of {post_id, scheduled_date} pairs (max 50)
community_idNoOptional X Community ID to post to
x_account_idNoTarget X account ID (for multi-account users)
share_with_followersNoShare community posts with followers too

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Despite annotations including destructiveHint: true, the description does not clarify what destructive means (e.g., overwriting existing schedules) or explain idempotency. It adds no context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action and constraints.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema and no mention of return values or behavior for a batch operation. Also fails to cover all parameters (community_id, x_account_id, share_with_followers are omitted).

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond repeating the schema. It mentions the array of post IDs and dates but does not elaborate on the three other parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'schedule' and the resource 'multiple tweets' with a precondition that they must be drafts, distinguishing it from siblings like opentweet_schedule_tweet (single) and opentweet_publish_tweet (immediate).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear precondition (tweets must be drafts) but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as opentweet_schedule_tweet for single scheduling.

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