SendIt

Update Recurring Series

update_recurring_series

Idempotent

Update the recurrence rule or end date for future occurrences in a recurring series.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Compatibility alias for seriesId.
`team_id`	No	Team ID to operate in team scope. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, uses personal scope.
`seriesId`	No	Recurring series parent scheduled post ID.
`recurrenceRule`	No	Replacement RRULE string.
`recurrenceEndDate`	No	Replacement ISO 8601 end date for the series.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedMay 7, 2026

removedInput schema / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "seriesId"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "id"
-    ]
-  }
-]

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds the key behavioral detail that changes apply only to 'future occurrences', which is not captured in the annotations. Combined with annotations (non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent), this provides a clear picture of the tool's side effects.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. It is concise and front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and its scope ('future occurrences'). It does not explain return values, but no output schema is present and the core behavior is adequately covered.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The overall description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema contains, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 updates recurrence rules or end dates for future occurrences in a recurring series. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_recurring_series.

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 clear context: use this when you need to modify the recurrence rule or end date for future occurrences. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context implies a distinction from canceling or editing individual posts.

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?