SendIt

Edit Published Post

edit_post

Idempotent

Edit a published post on a supported platform. Updates the text/caption of an already published post.

SUPPORTED: YouTube (title/description/tags), LinkedIn, Facebook, Mastodon, Telegram, Bluesky NOT SUPPORTED: X, Threads, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok

Requires the published post ID returned when the post was originally published through SendIt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	New tags (YouTube only)
`text`	No	New text/caption/commentary for the post
`title`	No	New title (YouTube only)
`postId`	Yes	Published post ID (database ID returned when the post was published)
`team_id`	No	Team ID to operate in team scope. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, uses personal scope.
`description`	No	New description (YouTube only)

Schema Changelog

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

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it limits edits to text/caption (and YouTube-specific fields), lists platform constraints, and requires the published post ID from original publish via SendIt. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear definition, a compact supported/not-supported list, and a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with six heterogeneous parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers selection context (supported platforms, published posts, post ID requirement) and points to schema details for parameter specifics. It does not explain success/failure responses, but that is not essential given annotations and the simple nature of the edit operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, except for the platform support list that clarifies which fields apply to which platforms (e.g., 'YouTube (title/description/tags)'). This is helpful but not essential given the schema already includes 'YouTube only' notes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edit a published post on a supported platform' and explicitly lists supported and unsupported platforms, distinguishing it from related tools like edit_scheduled_post. It clarifies that it updates text/caption, with platform-specific fields like YouTube title/description/tags.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong usage context by specifying it applies to published posts, requires the published post ID from original publish, and lists supported vs. unsupported platforms. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use edit_scheduled_post for scheduled posts'), but the 'NOT SUPPORTED' list and requirement for a published post ID give clear when-to-use guidance.

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

All SendIt 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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 148 tools, there is significant overlap. For example, generate_content, publish_ai, generate_post_bundle, and request_project_content all generate content; get_analytics, get_unified_analytics, get_post_analytics, get_ad_performance, and get_unified_ad_report all fetch performance metrics; and list_inbox vs list_conversations blur comment and conversation management. Descriptions help, but boundaries between tools are often unclear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_teams, create_goal, delete_post), but there are notable deviations: create_library_item vs save_to_library, publish_content vs publish_ai, schedule_content vs schedule_content_advanced, and connect_platform vs connect_connector. Mixed prefixes like 'autopilot_', 'check_', and 'get_' are fine, but overlapping verbs and a hyphen in 'connect_linkedin-page' reduce consistency.

Tool Count1/5

148 tools is extreme for any server. Even for a broad social media management platform, this is far beyond what an agent can effectively navigate. The count is unwieldy and suggests the surface should be split into multiple focused servers (publishing, analytics, connectors, workflows, etc.).

Completeness3/5

The core social publishing workflow is well covered (create, schedule, publish, edit, delete, retry), and there are extensive features for analytics, workflows, connectors, and AI agents. However, some resources have CRUD gaps: no update/delete for brand voices, no delete_project, no update/delete for Product Hunt goals, and no explicit get_workflow. These are workable but notable omissions.

Resources

Need Help?