Skip to main content
Glama

aidelly

by io.github.wilzer

aidelly_update_approval_settings

PATCH /workspaces/{workspaceId}/approval-settings — update member or owner-review approval settings. Owner review is owner-only. Public API preview.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional body override for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
queryNoOptional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
brand_idNo
workspaceIdYes
workspace_idNoWorkspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content.
idempotency_keyYes
requireOwnerReviewNoHold posts created by the workspace owner for explicit owner approval.
requireMemberApprovalNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / requireOwnerReview
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hold posts created by the workspace owner for explicit owner approval.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "idempotency_key",
-  "workspaceId",
-  "requireMemberApproval"
-]New value: +[
+  "idempotency_key",
+  "workspaceId"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace_id / description
      Added value: +"Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that owner review is owner-only, a permission constraint, and notes 'Public API preview' as a stability signal. It does not describe side effects, error cases, or return values, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 concise line with a clear endpoint and purpose, plus two short clarifying statements. It is front-loaded with the most important information and has no redundant content.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the difference between workspaceId and workspace_id, the purpose of idempotency_key, or the response format. The owner-only note is helpful but not enough for complete guidance.

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 description links the tool's purpose to the two boolean settings (member approval, owner review), giving semantic meaning. However, it does not explain required fields like idempotency_key, workspaceId vs workspace_id, or body/query overrides. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description only partially compensates.

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 states the action (update), the resource (approval settings), and the specific types (member or owner-review). It also includes the HTTP method and path, and notes the owner-only restriction, clearly distinguishing it from the get_approval_settings sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through the verb 'update' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aidelly_get_approval_settings. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The 'owner review is owner-only' line hints at an authorization condition but doesn't provide full usage guidance.

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

All aidelly 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

C2.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in approvals and post updates. For example, aidelly_action_post_approval and aidelly_post_approvals_id_action both handle approval actions, while aidelly_get_approvals and aidelly_list_pending_approvals appear to serve similar listing functions. The proliferation of HTTP-route-style names with generic prefixes (get_approvals_id, patch_posts_id) further obscures distinctions.

Naming Consistency1/5

The tool set mixes clean verb_noun names (create_post, list_posts) with HTTP-method-plus-path names (get_approvals_id, patch_posts_id, post_analytics_insights). There is no consistent pattern, and 'post' as a verb collides with the content post noun, creating confusion. The inconsistent conventions make it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 124 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP server scope and the calibration threshold (50+ is extreme). Even for a comprehensive platform API, such a large surface overwhelms agents and makes selection impractical. The count is a severe mismatch for a usable MCP tool set.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering CRUD for posts, drafts, scheduled posts, tasks, reports, webhooks, workspaces, e-commerce stores, and many more. Advanced features like approvals, repurpose jobs, and content automations are also represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit delete for regular posts, only cancel), but the domain is well covered overall.

Resources