invoke_create_campaign_plan_itemAdds a content idea or brief to a campaign plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Short content idea title. | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign that will hold this plan item. | |
| description | No | Content brief or details. | |
| content_type | No | Planned content format. | |
| social_account_id | No | Optional intended connected account for this idea. |
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?
The description aligns with annotations: readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with a non-destructive create. It does not go beyond that to mention duplicate behavior, return value, or whether plan items are created in a pending/draft state, so the added behavioral context is limited.
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?
The description is a single clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It immediately conveys the core operation and target resource.
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?
Given the simple create operation, the schema covers all five parameters in depth, and annotations are explicit, the description is largely sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. The main minor gaps are no guidance about the return value and no explicit statement about duplication or required state, but these are small in the absence of an output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters clearly. The description paraphrases 'content idea' and 'brief', which loosely aligns with the title and description parameters, but it adds no new meaning beyond what the input schema provides.
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 names a specific action ('Adds') and an exact resource ('a content idea or brief to a campaign plan'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling create/update operations such as create_campaign, update_campaign_plan_item, and convert_plan_item_to_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?
No explicit usage context is provided. The description does not explain when to choose this tool over update_campaign_plan_item, list_campaign_plan_items, or convert_plan_item_to_post, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an existing campaign.
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.