Socializioz — AI Social Media Manager

Create Campaign

invoke_create_campaign

Creates a campaign in a workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Campaign name.
`name_ar`	No	Arabic campaign name.
`end_date`	No	ISO 8601 end date.
`language`	No	ar\|en\|both; default both.
`objective`	No	Campaign objective or goal.
`start_date`	No	ISO 8601 start date.
`description`	No	Campaign brief or notes.
`workspace_id`	No	Workspace that will own the campaign; required when multiple workspaces exist.
`target_country`	No	Primary target country.
`primary_social_accounts`	No	Connected account IDs this campaign targets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description states only that a campaign is created in a workspace, which is a high-level effect but adds little beyond the tool name and annotations. It does not disclose side effects, return value, prerequisite conditions, or non-idempotency, and the available annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) do little to fill that gap.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the action, with no filler language. However, it is under-specified for a 10-parameter creation tool; brevity here crosses into thinness rather than optimal conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and a mutating behavior, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what happens after creation, what the created resource actually contains, or what minimum inputs beyond name are needed in realistic multi-workspace environments.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. However, the description adds no extra semantic value or clarifying relationships between parameters, e.g., how workspace_id or primary_social_accounts interact.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Creates') and names a clear resource and scope: a campaign in a workspace. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like invoke_create_campaign_plan_item or invoke_update_campaign, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as invoke_create_campaign_plan_item or invoke_update_campaign. The only contextual hint about workspace_id being required when multiple workspaces exist is buried in the schema, not in the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Socializioz — AI Social Media Manager tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?