Skip to main content
Glama

SendIt

by io.github.Shree-git

Schedule Content Advanced

schedule_content_advanced

Schedule content with explicit target accounts, queue placement, recurrence, platform overrides, media library attachments, and score gating.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes
team_idNoTeam ID to operate in team scope. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, uses personal scope.
timezoneNoOptional IANA timezone for queue resolution and recurrence.
scoreGateNoOptional minimum content score threshold. If unmet, the tool can return a bypass token instead of scheduling.
recurrenceNoOptional structured recurrence definition.
bypassTokenNoOptional bypass token returned from a previous score gate warning.
scheduledAtNoISO 8601 time for exact scheduling. Required unless scheduleMode is 'queue'.
scheduleModeNoScheduling strategy. Use 'queue' to place the post into the next available queue slot.
recurrenceRuleNoOptional RRULE string for advanced recurring schedules.
targetAccountsYesConnected account IDs to schedule to. These determine the target platforms.
mediaAttachmentsNoOptional media library assets to link to the scheduled post.
platformOverridesNoOptional per-platform overrides keyed by platform ID. Use this for platform-specific text, title, description, or publish settings.
recurrenceEndDateNoOptional ISO 8601 date-time to stop the recurring series.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "scheduledAt"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "scheduleMode": {
-        "const": "queue"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "scheduleMode"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, prerequisites (e.g., connected accounts), or consequences of score gating failures. The feature enumeration is a capability list, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates all major capabilities without redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too high-level. It omits guidance on return values, failure modes, or prerequisites not already in the schema. A more complete narrative would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 92%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely summarizes features. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Schedule' and resource 'content', then enumerates six distinguishing advanced capabilities (explicit target accounts, queue placement, recurrence, platform overrides, media library attachments, score gating). This makes the tool's purpose specific and differentiates it from the simpler sibling `schedule_content`.

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 feature list implies when this tool is appropriate (e.g., when needing recurrence or score gating), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like `schedule_content` or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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

All SendIt toolsInspect
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