Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ghl-mcp-server-v2

ghl-mcp-server-v2

by zackscriven
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ghl_social_add_watermark_on_image

Applies a watermark to an image using a template ID or connected account, queuing processing and returning a progress ID or completed output URL.

Instructions

Apply watermark to an image Apply a watermark to an image using either a specific template ID or by resolving the template bound to a specific connected account.

If the same watermark + image combination has been processed before, the response returns immediately with status: completed and the output URL in message. Otherwise, processing is queued and the response returns status: pending with a progressId.

Rate limits: This endpoint may be rate-limited to prevent abuse. To resolve a template dynamically at publish time, pass accountId — the endpoint will resolve the template bound to that connected account. Use the Get Accounts endpoint to look up account IDs.

Processing is asynchronous — the response returns a progressId that identifies this preview job.

Document fields:

  • status: 'pending' | 'processing' | 'completed' | 'failed'

  • outputMediaUrl: string, available when status is completed

  • errorMessage: string, available when status is failed Endpoint: POST /social-media-posting/{locationId}/watermarks/add-image-watermark (Version header: v3; source: v3/social-planner-v3.json) Requires a Sub-Account (location) token. OAuth scopes: socialplanner/watermarks.write

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesRequest body (schema carried verbatim from the official OpenAPI spec).
locationIdYesLocation Id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), it discloses async queuing, the pending/completed status model, and the caching short-circuit for previously processed combinations. There is mild tension between the cached-repeat behavior and idempotentHint=false, but this is not a direct contradiction. Auth and scope requirements are also stated.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the key routing rule (accountId for dynamic template resolution) appears early. There is some redundancy: async behavior and progressId are stated twice, and the document-fields list overlaps the status discussion, but the text remains readable and mostly earns its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite there being no output schema, the description documents the response fields (status, outputMediaUrl, errorMessage) and the status enum values, plus endpoint, version, token requirement, and OAuth scope. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description restates the accountId/templateId mutual requirement that the schema already carries ('Required if templateId is not provided'), 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?

The opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Apply watermark to an image') and the body clarifies that the template can come from a templateId or an accountId. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from nearby siblings like ghl_social_create_watermark or ghl_social_get_all_watermarks, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

It gives clear operational context: the templateId-vs-accountId alternatives, the rate-limit caveat, and the fact that processing is queued. It stops short of saying when to use this versus the other watermark siblings, so guidance is strong but not complete.

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