invoke_schedule_postSchedules a post. Pending review needs approve_post, or explicit override_approval=true when the user asks to bypass review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | Socializioz post ID. | |
| timezone | No | IANA timezone; default UTC. | |
| schedule_at | Yes | Future ISO 8601 datetime (UTC). | |
| override_approval | No | Only when the user explicitly asks to bypass a pending review. |
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 adds a meaningful behavioral detail: scheduling a pending-review post requires approval unless explicitly overridden. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true behavior, such as whether scheduling overwrites an existing schedule, which would have been valuable context beyond the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence delivers a genuinely important approval condition, with no filler or redundant wording.
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 plus schema covers the main scheduling workflow, but leaves the destructive behavior and missing output schema unaddressed, so the agent cannot infer what the return value or side effects will be when scheduling is invoked. Some sibling differentiation around rescheduling would also improve completeness.
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%, and the schema already documents post_id, timezone, schedule_at, and override_approval. The description only restates the override_approval condition without adding meaningful new parameter semantics.
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 states a clear action ('Schedules a post') and adds the approval flow, which gives it more specificity than a bare restatement of the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from reschedule_post, but the approval caveat makes its role reasonably clear.
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 description provides workflow guidance: pending-review posts require approve_post or explicit override_approval=true. However, it does not clarify when to use this tool instead of publish_now, reschedule_post, or cancel_scheduled_post, leaving tool selection partly to inference.
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.