Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Buffer MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get daily posting limits

get_daily_posting_limits
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check daily posting limits for selected Buffer channels on a specific date, defaulting to today, to see remaining capacity before scheduling.

Instructions

Returns daily posting limit status for the given channels on the specified date.. Current Buffer GraphQL dailyPostingLimits. One request, no automatic pagination. Use upstream fields to bound data; provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoThe date to check limits for. Defaults to today if not provided.
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.
accountNoPrivate account profile name. Selects credentials only; an organization default does not restrict provider token permissions.
payloadNoComplete native input object instead of individual input fields.
channelIdsNo
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. Changed9 schema fields changedv3.0.1
    • addedInput schema / $defs
      Added value: +{
+  "channelIds": {
+    "description": "List of channel IDs to check limits for. All channels must belong to the same organization.",
+    "items": {
+      "description": "List of channel IDs to check limits for. All channels must belong to the same organization.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / channelIds / $ref
      Added value: +"#/$defs/channelIds"
    • removedInput schema / properties / channelIds / description
      Removed value: -"List of channel IDs to check limits for. All channels must belong to the same organization."
    • removedInput schema / properties / channelIds / items
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "List of channel IDs to check limits for. All channels must belong to the same organization.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / channelIds / type
      Removed value: -"array"
    • addedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / channelIds / $ref
      Added value: +"#/$defs/channelIds"
    • removedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / channelIds / description
      Removed value: -"List of channel IDs to check limits for. All channels must belong to the same organization."
    • removedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / channelIds / items
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "List of channel IDs to check limits for. All channels must belong to the same organization.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / payload / properties / channelIds / type
      Removed value: -"array"
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: exactly one request with no automatic pagination, and that provider errors surface as failures even on HTTP 200. That error-semantics disclosure is valuable context an agent cannot get from 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the effect and followed by operational constraints; every sentence carries information. Minor blemish: a doubled period after 'specified date..' and somewhat compressed jargon ('upstream fields'), but no padding.

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 6-parameter, nested-object read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, request/pagination behavior and error handling. It stops short of explaining what the returned limit status actually contains, but with readOnly annotations and rich schema descriptions the coverage is adequate for correct invocation.

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 83%, so the schema already documents date defaulting, channelIds same-organization constraint, fields paths, payload_file size limits and the payload wrapper. The description only restates 'given channels on the specified date' and echoes the fields-bounding idea, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns daily posting limit status for the given channels on the specified date') and ties it to the upstream Buffer GraphQL dailyPostingLimits resource, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_aggregated_post_metrics or get_channels, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It implies when the tool applies (checking per-channel posting limits for a date) and gives a practical usage tip about bounding data with upstream fields, but never states when to prefer an alternative or what prerequisites exist beyond channel-same-organization in the schema. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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