invoke_send_post_for_approvalMoves a DRAFT to PENDING_APPROVAL and creates a human approval request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | Socializioz post ID. | |
| request_id | No | Optional client correlation id echoed back for tracing. |
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 goes beyond the annotations by specifying the exact behavior: moving from DRAFT to PENDING_APPROVAL and creating an approval request. Annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness; the description supplements them usefully with the target state. It does not elaborate on side effects of the destructive hint, but the core behavior is transparent.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the most decision-relevant information: the state change and the creation of an approval request. No word is wasted.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with a clear state transition, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe what outcomes the caller can expect beyond the transition and doesn't mention any preconditions for the draft, though these are partly inferable from the schema and annotations.
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?
The input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, describing post_id as 'Socializioz post ID' and request_id as an optional correlation id. The description does not add further parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
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 specific verb ('Moves') plus a precise resource and state transition: 'Moves a DRAFT to PENDING_APPROVAL and creates a human approval request.' This clearly separates it from siblings like invoke_approve_post, invoke_reject_post, or invoke_publish_now.
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?
Usage is implied through the state transition: the tool is for taking a draft and sending it through an approval request. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as invoke_approve_post or invoke_publish_now, and doesn't provide exclusions or requirements.
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.