Skip to main content
Glama

SendIt

by io.github.Shree-git

Score Content Quality

score_content
Read-onlyIdempotent

Score content quality on a 0-100 scale before publishing.

Evaluates 5 factors (20 points each):

  1. Text length optimization for target platforms

  2. Hashtag count optimization

  3. Posting time alignment with best engagement windows

  4. Media presence (images/videos)

  5. Content patterns (CTA, hooks, formatting, emoji)

Returns overall score, per-factor breakdown, and improvement suggestions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe post text content
mediaUrlNoPrimary media URL (optional)
mediaUrlsNoMultiple media URLs for carousel (optional)
platformsYesTarget platforms to score against
scheduledTimeNoScheduled publish time in ISO 8601 (optional, improves time score)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by enumerating the 5 factors and specifying the return payload (overall score, per-factor breakdown, improvement suggestions).

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?

Three sentences: an opening purpose statement, a bullet-style list of the 5 factors, and a return-value sentence. Every line adds value and is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (5 params, no output schema), but the description covers evaluation logic and expected output behavior. It does not detail edge cases or exact response formatting, but that is acceptable given the schema and read-only annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description enhances semantics by linking 'scheduledTime' to the time alignment factor and 'mediaUrl/mediaUrls' to media presence, helping the agent understand how inputs are used.

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 opens with 'Score content quality on a 0-100 scale before publishing,' which is a specific verb, resource, and outcome. It lists five concrete evaluation factors and clearly distinguishes itself from content generation (generate_content) and publishing tools by emphasizing pre-publish scoring.

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 phrase 'before publishing' provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like critique_post or validate_content, but the 5-factor scoring approach implies a quality-assessment use case distinct from other content operations.

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