Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Buffer MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Add a post that already exists to a content item

add_post_to_content_item
Destructive

Add an existing post to a content item in Buffer; create the post first if needed. Requires confirmation before linking the post.

Instructions

Add a post that already exists to a content item. The mutation creates no post. To add a new post, call createPost first.. Current Buffer GraphQL addPostToContentItem. Requires explicit confirmation. Use upstream fields to bound data; provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe content item to add the post to.
fieldsNoUpstream field paths relative to the result, as in official CLI --fields. Default fields are bounded. Use items.id for connection nodes; pageInfo.endCursor for cursors.
postIdNoThe post to add. The post must already exist. The post and the content item must belong to the same organization.
accountNoPrivate account profile name. Selects credentials only; an organization default does not restrict provider token permissions.
confirmNoSet true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
payloadNoComplete native input object instead of individual input fields.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON input file, no symlink, at most 1 MiB; cannot mix with payload or individual input fields.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true for this exact user-requested Buffer mutation."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: that no post is created, that explicit confirmation is required, and that provider errors surface as failures even on HTTP 200. That last point is a non-obvious failure mode worth disclosing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action and the key disambiguation in the first two sentences, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct fact. Minor noise from the stray double period and the 'Current Buffer GraphQL addPostToContentItem' internal-name sentence, which adds little for an agent.

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 7-parameter nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the preconditions, confirmation gate, and error semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits nothing critical, though a note on whether the addition is reversible would round it out.

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%, so the schema already documents id, postId, fields, account, confirm and payload. The description's only parameter-adjacent hint ('Use upstream fields to bound data') largely restates the fields schema description, so it does not add meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a post that already exists to a content item') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling create_post by saying 'The mutation creates no post. To add a new post, call createPost first.' An agent can distinguish it from create_post and remove_post_from_content_item without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear precondition (the post must already exist) and names the alternative tool to use for the other case (createPost for a new post), plus a confirmation requirement. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse sibling (remove_post_from_content_item) or stating when-not to use this at all, but the routing guidance is strong.

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