Skip to main content
Glama

aidelly

by io.github.wilzer

aidelly_update_draft

Update a draft — set draft_planned_for to null to clear the planned date. Drafts never publish. Existing API keys need the new drafts:write scope added to gain draft access; no implicit grant occurs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyNoOptional body override for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
textNoDraft content / caption.
queryNoOptional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas.
titleNoDraft title.
brand_idNo
draft_kindNoDraft composition type.
media_urlsNoMedia URLs.
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
draft_planned_forNoISO 8601 date/time for calendar placement (null clears it).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Removed value: -"Draft ID."
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "idempotency_key",
+  "id"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: drafts never publish, setting draft_planned_for to null clears the date, and API keys require an added scope with no implicit grant. This adds substantial context not available from annotations alone.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds unique information: the null-clearing behavior, the draft publishing constraint, and the authorization requirement. No filler or redundant repetition.

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?

The description captures the most critical non-obvious aspects (auth scope, never publish, planned date clearing). However, with 11 parameters and no output schema, it does not address partial vs. full update semantics, the response shape, or the idempotency_key requirement. It is adequate but leaves open questions for a complex update tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema covers most parameters, but the description adds little of value. It repeats the null-clearing behavior for draft_planned_for, which is already described in the schema. It does not clarify the undocumented parameters like id, idempotency_key, or brand_id, and the 'drafts never publish' note is not tied to specific parameters. Given 73% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the gaps.

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 identifies the tool's action: 'Update a draft' with a specific resource. It also adds a unique behavioral detail (clearing draft_planned_for with null) that further specifies its scope. Despite not naming sibling tools, the verb+resource combination unambiguously distinguishes it from create/delete/get/list operations.

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 usage context: it states that drafts never publish, which implies this tool is for editing rather than publishing. It also explicitly notes the required `drafts:write` scope and that no implicit grant occurs. However, it does not name alternatives like create_draft or update_scheduled_post, so it's slightly below the 'explicit alternatives' bar.

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