Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Buffer MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update a post template owned by the caller (or an internal template in the caller's organization, if the caller is an org admin/owner).

update_post_template
Destructive

Update a Buffer post template's title, body, emoji, description, or visibility. Requires explicit confirmation before the change is applied.

Instructions

Update a post template owned by the caller (or an internal template in the caller's organization, if the caller is an org admin/owner).. Current Buffer GraphQL updatePostTemplate. Requires explicit confirmation. Use upstream fields to bound data; provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe ID of the template to update.
bodyNoThe main content body of the template, may contain {{placeholders}}.
emojiNoThe emoji associated with the template.
titleNoThe title of the template.
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.
confirmNoMust be true for this exact user-requested Buffer mutation.
payloadNoComplete native input object instead of individual input fields.
visibilityNo`public` is rejected — it is only available to official Buffer clients.
descriptionNoA short user-facing description of the template.
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. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the auth scope (owner or org admin/owner for internal templates) and error semantics ('provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200'), but the 'Requires explicit confirmation' line largely duplicates the schema's confirm parameter documentation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Reasonably compact and front-loaded, but it restates the title verbatim (waste) and contains a doubled period ('owner)..'), which signals rough editing. The behavioral notes are tacked on rather than structured.

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 destructive 11-parameter mutation, the description covers the confirmation requirement, the ownership/authorization scope, and provider-error semantics. Remaining gaps — return shape and payload-vs-file selection — are handled by the 100%-covered schema and the destructive annotations.

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 all 11 parameters including the payload/payload_file mutual exclusion and the visibility enum. The description adds only the generic 'use upstream fields to bound data' note, which the fields schema description already covers.

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 ('Update a post template') and adds a scope/ownership qualifier (caller-owned or org-internal for admins). This lets an agent separate it from create_post_template, get_post_template, and delete_post_template. However, the sentence is a verbatim repeat of the title, so it earns no independent clarity beyond that.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. 'Requires explicit confirmation' and 'Use upstream fields to bound data' are preconditions and formatting notes, not routing guidance between this and sibling mutations such as create_post_template or update_content_item.

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