invoke_approve_postApproves a PENDING_APPROVAL post and schedules it. Pass schedule_at to choose when; otherwise an existing schedule is used, or ASAP if none exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Optional reviewer notes stored with the approval. | |
| post_id | Yes | Socializioz post ID. | |
| schedule_at | No | Optional ISO 8601 time with Z or a numeric UTC offset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a mutating and idempotent operation, so the description adds value by explaining the scheduling fallback behavior: use schedule_at, otherwise an existing schedule, otherwise ASAP. This is meaningful behavioral detail beyond what annotations say.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two terse sentences: the first states the action and precondition, the second explains scheduling behavior. There is no filler, no repetition of schema fields, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the target state, scheduling semantics, and expected behavior well enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Since there is no output schema, a note about return values would improve completeness, but it is not a blocking gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by defining the fallback behavior for schedule_at, which is not apparent from the schema's basic ISO 8601 description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Approves'), names the target resource state ('PENDING_APPROVAL post'), and states the key side effect ('schedules it'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like invoke_reject_post, invoke_publish_now, and invoke_schedule_post.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The PENDING_APPROVAL condition provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the schedule_at guidance explains how to control timing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the state-based condition is specific enough for an agent to make the right decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and lifecycle state, so an agent can usually pick correctly. The main ambiguity is among the profile/context tools and the approve/schedule/publish family, but the descriptions give enough state-specific detail to avoid serious misselection.
The set consistently uses an invoke_ prefix with snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun pattern. It only deviates with names like media_preflight and x_live_read, which place the verb at the end or use noun phrases.
With 33 tools, the server is well beyond the typical well-scoped range. It covers many distinct areas, but the high number of status-specific post tools and separate context/profile/workspace tools makes the surface feel bloated rather than cohesive.
The core social publishing workflow is covered well: create, edit, approve, schedule, publish, cancel, retry, and campaign planning. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete/archive for drafts, campaigns, or assets, and limited tools for inbox, comment, or broader analytics beyond the single X read gateway.