The viralnote-mcp server provides an MCP interface to the ViralNote social media management API, enabling management of posts, media, accounts, analytics, and webhooks across 10+ platforms (X, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest, Bluesky, Threads, and Reddit).
Post Management: Create, read, update, delete, and publish posts — including drafts and scheduled posts with captions, media, and target platforms. Filter by status (draft, scheduled, publishing, published, failed) or platform, with pagination.
Media Library: List media (filterable by type and folder), import files via HTTPS URL (up to 200MB) or base64 data (up to 3MB), and delete media items.
Social Accounts: List all connected social media accounts.
Analytics & Results: Retrieve per-platform engagement metrics (views, likes, comments, shares) for published posts, and view per-platform delivery results (success/failure) for published or failed posts.
Webhooks: Create, list, and delete webhook subscriptions to receive event notifications (e.g., post.published, post.failed) at a custom URL.
Allows scheduling and publishing posts, managing media, and reading analytics on Bluesky.
Allows scheduling and publishing posts, managing media, and reading analytics on Facebook.
Allows scheduling and publishing posts, managing media, and reading analytics on Instagram.
Allows scheduling and publishing posts, managing media, and reading analytics on Pinterest.
Allows scheduling and publishing posts, managing media, and reading analytics on Reddit.
Allows scheduling and publishing posts, managing media, and reading analytics on Threads.
Allows scheduling and publishing posts, managing media, and reading analytics on TikTok.
Allows scheduling and publishing posts, managing media, and reading analytics on YouTube.
A Model Context Protocol server for the ViralNote social media API.
Plug it into Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, or any other MCP-aware host and your agent can schedule posts, manage media, and read analytics across X, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest, Bluesky, Threads, and Reddit — as native MCP tool calls. No glue code.
Add to your MCP config (~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on macOS, similar on other platforms):
{
"mcpServers": {
"viralnote": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@viralnote/mcp-server"],
"env": {
"VIRALNOTE_API_KEY": "vnd_..."
}
}
}
}Restart your MCP host. The ViralNote tools will be available immediately.
This repo includes a root .mcp.json (Open Plugins standard) so tools like Cursor Directory can auto-detect the MCP server from the GitHub URL.
Once the plugin is published on Cursor Marketplace, you can install it directly from Cursor:
Open Cursor and go to Settings → Plugins
Search for "ViralNote" in the Marketplace
Click Install
In Plugins → Configure, set your VIRALNOTE_API_KEY
Get your API key from dashboard.viralnote.app or viralnote.app/developers/auth
The ViralNote tools will be immediately available in your Cursor environment.
npm install -g @viralnote/mcp-serverThen reference viralnote-mcp directly in your MCP config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"viralnote": {
"command": "viralnote-mcp",
"env": { "VIRALNOTE_API_KEY": "vnd_..." }
}
}
}Related MCP server: vibemarketing-mcp
Env var | Required | Default | Notes |
| yes | — | Generate at viralnote.app/developers/auth. Grant |
| no |
| Override for staging/self-hosted instances. |
Tool | Purpose |
| List posts (filter by status/platform, paginated) |
| Read one post including per-platform publish results |
| Create a draft ( |
| Update a draft or scheduled post |
| Delete (cancels if scheduled) |
| Publish a draft now |
| List media library items |
| Import by URL (200MB) or base64 data (3MB) |
| Delete a media item |
| List connected social accounts |
| Published posts with per-platform metrics |
| Per-platform delivery results (success/error) |
| List webhook subscriptions |
| Subscribe to events |
| Unsubscribe |
For most users, the HTTP MCP server at https://viralnote.app/api/mcp/mcp is simpler than installing this stdio package — see https://viralnote.app/developers/mcp for the HTTP config snippet. Use this stdio package when your MCP client doesn't support HTTP transport.
The underlying REST endpoints and request/response shapes are documented at viralnote.app/developers/docs.
"Show me my last 5 scheduled posts." Tool:
list_postswith{ status: "scheduled", limit: 5 }.
"Schedule this caption to Instagram for tomorrow at 9am, attaching the photo I uploaded yesterday." Tools:
list_media→ find item →create_postwith{ platforms: ["instagram"], caption, libraryItemId, scheduledFor, status: "scheduled" }.
"Pull this Dropbox link into my library, then publish it to X immediately." Tools:
import_media→create_post(draft) →publish_post.
git clone https://github.com/viralnote/mcp-server
cd mcp-server
npm install
npm run build
VIRALNOTE_API_KEY=vnd_... npm startFor local iteration without rebuilding:
VIRALNOTE_API_KEY=vnd_... npm run devMIT — see LICENSE. Pull requests welcome.
Create a new post as a draft or schedule it for automatic publishing. With status='draft' (or is_draft=true) the post is saved with no publish time; with scheduledFor set it is queued and publishes automatically at that time. Returns the created post object including its id. Media must already exist in the library — call import_media or list_media first to get a media id. The user must have connected each target platform (verify with list_social_accounts if unsure). To publish an existing draft immediately, use publish_post rather than creating a new post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Explicit lifecycle state. Overrides is_draft when both are passed. | |
| caption | No | The post text, used for all target platforms. Platform-specific length limits apply at publish time. | |
| is_draft | No | Convenience flag: true saves the post as a draft (status='draft'). False with scheduledFor set schedules it. | |
| mediaIds | No | Media library item ids for a multi-image carousel post, up to 10. Mutually exclusive with libraryItemId. Platform support for carousels varies. | |
| platforms | Yes | Platforms to publish to. Each must already be connected to the user's ViralNote account. | |
| scheduledFor | No | When to auto-publish, as an ISO 8601 UTC timestamp (e.g. 2026-07-10T09:00:00Z). Must be in the future. Required for scheduled posts; omit for drafts. | |
| libraryItemId | No | Id of one media library item to attach (from list_media or import_media). Mutually exclusive with mediaIds. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: draft vs scheduled, return of created post with id, prerequisites. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers key behavioral aspects adequately. Slight deduction for lack of detail on validation failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with the main purpose, then logically progresses through draft/scheduled details, return value, prerequisites, and alternative tool. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy, achieving conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description covers core functionality, prerequisites, and alternatives. It mentions the return value minimally. Could include more on error scenarios or return structure, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. Description adds value by explaining the draft/scheduled flow and the precedence of status over is_draft. It doesn't repeat schema details but provides contextual semantics beyond the parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool creates a new post as draft or scheduled. It distinguishes from sibling publish_post by explicitly mentioning that to publish an existing draft immediately, use publish_post. This provides specificity and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides explicit preconditions: media must already exist (import_media/list_media), platforms must be connected (list_social_accounts). It also notes the alternative publish_post for immediate publishing of drafts. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Subscribe a URL to ViralNote event notifications. ViralNote sends an HTTP POST with a JSON payload to the URL each time a subscribed event fires — for example post.published when a post goes live, or post.failed when delivery errors. Returns the created subscription including its id. The URL must be an HTTPS endpoint you control and that is publicly reachable. Check list_webhooks first to avoid duplicating an existing subscription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Publicly reachable HTTPS endpoint that will receive event POSTs. | |
| events | Yes | Event names to subscribe to, e.g. 'post.published', 'post.failed'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: creates a subscription, returns the object with id, sends HTTP POST to URL, and requires HTTPS and public reachability. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences with clear flow: purpose, mechanism, return, prerequisite. No fluff. Each sentence adds unique value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a creation tool with 2 params and no output schema. Explains trigger, return, and duplicate avoidance. Could add error scenarios or rate limits, but not necessary for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds valuable context: URL must be HTTPS and controlled by user, events examples like 'post.published', and purpose of events. Adds meaning beyond schema, but schema already good.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Subscribe a URL' to event notifications, clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_webhooks and delete_webhook by focusing on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Check list_webhooks first to avoid duplicating an existing subscription.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and what to consider before invoking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Permanently delete a media library item by id. The file cannot be recovered — confirm with the user before deleting. Use list_media to find the item's id and verify it is the right file (check name and type) first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mediaId | Yes | Id of the media library item to delete, from list_media or import_media. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavioral traits: permanent deletion (irreversible) and need for user confirmation. Sufficient for a simple delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with core action and immediate key behavior (permanent deletion).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral nuance completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage and describes the parameter's source. Description adds value by advising to verify correctness via list_media, going beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool is for permanently deleting a media library item by ID. Distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_post and delete_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to confirm with user before deleting and to use list_media first to verify the correct item. Provides clear when-to-use and prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Permanently delete a post by id. If the post is scheduled, this cancels the pending publish. This does not retract content already delivered to social platforms — it only removes the ViralNote record. Irreversible: confirm with the user before deleting. Use update_post instead if the goal is to fix or reschedule a post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes | Id of the post to delete, from list_posts. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses permanent deletion, cancellation of scheduled posts, no retraction from social platforms, and irreversibility, giving a clear behavioral model.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, nuance about scheduled posts, scope of effect, and warning with alternative. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers use cases, limitations, and safety warnings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic meaning for postId beyond what's in the schema, but does add context about confirming with user. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Permanently delete a post by id' and distinguishes from update_post for fixing/rescheduling. It specifies the resource and action explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use (delete) and when to use alternative (update_post for fixing/rescheduling). Also warns about irreversibility and need for user confirmation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a webhook subscription by id. The target URL immediately stops receiving event notifications. Irreversible, but a subscription can be recreated with create_webhook. Use list_webhooks to find the id and confirm which URL/events it covers before deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookId | Yes | Id of the webhook subscription to delete, from list_webhooks. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the 'target URL immediately stops receiving event notifications' and that the action is 'Irreversible,' which clearly communicates the destructive nature. Lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but for a delete operation this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides consequences and usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, the description covers essential aspects: what happens, irreversibility, and preparatory steps. Without an output schema, the return format is not mentioned, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the parameter webhookId, but the description adds value by specifying 'from list_webhooks,' guiding the agent on valid input sources. This goes beyond the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Delete a webhook subscription by id,' clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing create_webhook and list_webhooks, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: use list_webhooks before deleting to confirm details, and mentions that a subscription can be recreated with create_webhook. This effectively tells when and how to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a single post by id, including its full per-platform publish results (success or error per platform). Use after list_posts to inspect one post in detail, or after publish_post to check how delivery went. Returns an error if the id does not exist or belongs to another account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes | The post's id, as returned by list_posts or create_post. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it returns publish results per platform and errors for invalid IDs, implying read-only behavior. However, lacks details on response structure or potential side effects, though none expected for a fetch operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and error conditions. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: explains purpose, usage, and error conditions. Could elaborate on return format but the mention of 'full per-platform publish results' is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for postId. The description adds that the id is 'as returned by list_posts or create_post', providing context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (fetch a single post by id) and specifies the inclusion of per-platform publish results, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_posts and publish_post.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using this tool after list_posts to inspect a post in detail or after publish_post to check delivery, providing clear context for invocation. Also mentions error condition for non-existent or wrong account ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Import a file into the media library so it can be attached to posts. Two modes: (1) URL mode — pass url with an HTTPS direct-download link (up to 200MB; Dropbox and Canva share links supported via the matching source); (2) inline mode — pass data with base64-encoded bytes (3MB max before encoding) plus mimeType, with source='direct'. Exactly one of url or data must be provided. Returns the created library item including the id to use in create_post. For files over 3MB, always use URL mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS direct-download URL of the file, up to 200MB. Mutually exclusive with `data`. | |
| data | No | Base64-encoded file bytes, 3MB maximum raw size. Mutually exclusive with `url`; requires `mimeType`. | |
| name | Yes | Display name for the library item, including the file extension (e.g. 'clip-01.mp4'). | |
| bytes | No | Optional declared file size in bytes, letting the API reject oversized files before downloading. | |
| source | Yes | Origin of the file: 'dropbox' or 'canva' when url is a share link from those services; 'direct' for base64 data or a generic HTTPS URL. | |
| mimeType | No | MIME type such as video/mp4 or image/png. Required with `data`; optional with `url` (detected from the download). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses file size limits, mutual exclusivity of parameters, and the requirement of mimeType with data. It could mention error handling or authorization needs, but it is fairly transparent about the core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing modes. It is clear and efficient, though it could be slightly shorter without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the return value (including id) and covers the two usage modes. It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly, though it omits error handling and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the two modes, mutual exclusivity, file size limits, and the meaning of the source enum, going beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: importing a file into the media library for attachment to posts. It distinguishes two modes (URL and inline) and mentions the return value (id for create_post), which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_post or delete_media.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: URL mode for files up to 200MB with HTTPS links, inline mode for base64 data up to 3MB. It also specifies that exactly one of url or data must be provided and advises using URL mode for files over 3MB.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List published posts with their latest per-platform metrics: views, likes, comments, shares, and engagement. Metrics are collected periodically by ViralNote, so values are the most recent snapshot rather than real-time. Use to report on content performance or find top-performing posts; use list_post_results instead when the question is whether delivery succeeded. Paginated via cursor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum posts per page (1-50). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from the previous response. Omit for the first page. | |
| platform | No | Only include metrics for posts targeting this platform. Omit for all platforms. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that metrics are periodic snapshots, not real-time, and mentions pagination via cursor. No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden well. Could mention if any latency or auth requirements, but overall transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences total, each adding value: first sentence gives core purpose, second gives usage guidelines, third notes pagination. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description provides a list of metric names but not the exact return structure. It mentions pagination cursor, which is sufficient. Could be slightly more detailed on response format, but for a list tool it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it mentions pagination but that is already implied by cursor parameter. No added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists published posts with per-platform metrics (views, likes, comments, shares, engagement) and distinguishes itself from list_post_results by specifying when to use each. It is specific, has a verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says use for content performance or top posts, and directs to use list_post_results for delivery success. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List items in the user's media library. Returns each item's id, name, type, and folder, plus a cursor field when more pages exist. Use this to find a media id to attach to a post via create_post or update_post, or to check whether a file was already imported before calling import_media.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort order by upload date. | newest |
| type | No | Filter by media kind. 'clip' is a short-form clip generated by ViralNote's AI clipping. | |
| limit | No | Maximum items per page (1-50). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from the previous response. Omit for the first page. | |
| folder | No | Only items in this library folder (exact name match). Omit for all folders. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does so by detailing the return fields (id, name, type, folder) and pagination via cursor. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but for a list operation this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds return info and usage. No fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers response shape and pagination. It also provides usage context. Minor omission: no mention of sorting/filtering, but schema covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists items in the user's media library, distinguishing it from sibling tools like import_media and delete_media. It specifies the resource (media library) and action (list), leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides usage scenarios: finding a media id for create_post/update_post, or checking before calling import_media. This directly guides the agent on when to use this tool and hints at alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check delivery outcomes: returns recent published or failed posts with each platform's individual result (success, or the error that occurred). Pass postId to inspect one post's delivery; omit it to scan recent posts filtered by status. Use after publish_post to verify delivery, or when the user asks why a post didn't appear on a platform. For engagement metrics rather than delivery status, use list_analytics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum posts to return (1-50). | |
| postId | No | Restrict to a single post's results. When set, status and limit are ignored. | |
| status | No | Which recent posts to scan when postId is omitted: successfully published, or failed deliveries. | published |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that it returns per-platform results (success or error), and that setting postId ignores status and limit. No mention of side effects or auth, but the core behavior is clearly described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers when to use, what it does, and parameter interactions. Lacks explicit return format details (e.g., structure of per-platform results), but given no output schema, it provides reasonable completeness for a tool with 3 params.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between postId and other params (ignores status and limit when set) and clarifying the status enum values with examples. Adds meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns delivery outcomes for published or failed posts with per-platform results. It distinguishes from sibling tool list_analytics by specifying this is for delivery status, not engagement metrics, and contrasts with publish_post (use after to verify).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (after publish_post to verify, or when user asks why post didn't appear) and when not (for engagement metrics, use list_analytics). Also explains behavior based on whether postId is provided or omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the user's posts. Returns post objects with id, caption, status, target platforms, scheduled time, and attached media ids, plus a cursor field when more pages exist. Use this to find a post's id before calling get_post, update_post, delete_post, or publish_post, or to review upcoming scheduled content. For per-platform delivery outcomes or metrics, prefer list_post_results or list_analytics instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum posts per page (1-50). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from the previous response. Omit for the first page. | |
| status | No | Filter by lifecycle state: draft (saved, no publish time), scheduled (queued for a future time), publishing (delivery in progress), published (delivered), failed (delivery errored). Omit to list all. | |
| platform | No | Only return posts that target this platform. Omit to include all platforms. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the non-destructive nature (listing) and pagination behavior via cursor. However, it does not mention any potential authorization requirements or rate limits; still, the baseline is adequate for a read-only list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences: first defining the function and return fields, second providing usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the purpose, parameters, return fields, pagination, and usage alternatives. No output schema is provided, but the description sufficiently explains what the response contains. All typical concerns for a list endpoint are addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema, though it does indirectly mention the cursor in the response context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'the user's posts', and specifies the return fields (id, caption, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing per-platform outcomes to list_post_results or list_analytics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to find a post's id before calling get_post, update_post, delete_post, or publish_post, or to review upcoming scheduled content.' Also provides exclusions: 'For per-platform delivery outcomes or metrics, prefer list_post_results or list_analytics instead.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the social accounts connected to the user's ViralNote account: platform and account identity for each. Takes no parameters. Use before create_post to confirm the intended target platforms are actually connected — posting to an unconnected platform fails. Note that connecting or disconnecting accounts happens in the ViralNote dashboard UI (OAuth); it cannot be done through this API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, no parameters, and the limitation about OAuth. Could add minor details like whether results are paginated, but given zero parameters, it's likely all accounts. Overall, well-disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no waste: purpose, usage guidance, limitation. Front-loaded with core action. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, why use it, and what it cannot do. There are no gaps given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters,' which is sufficient. Baseline for 0 param tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'social accounts connected to the user's ViralNote account', and what info is returned (platform and account identity). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it takes no parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use before create_post to confirm the intended target platforms are actually connected — posting to an unconnected platform fails.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies alternative (just don't use if you already know connections). Also explains that connecting/disconnecting must be done in UI, not API.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all webhook subscriptions on the account: each subscription's id, target URL, and subscribed events. Takes no parameters. Use to find a webhookId before delete_webhook, or to check whether an event is already covered before calling create_webhook (avoids duplicate subscriptions).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly indicates a read-only list operation with no side effects. Could mention any potential rate limits or pagination, but given no parameters and simple scope, it is sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancies. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (id, target URL, subscribed events) and provides context on how to use the results. Sufficient for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters', adding clarity beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes exactly what the tool does: 'List all webhook subscriptions on the account' with details on returned fields (id, target URL, subscribed events). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook and delete_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'find a webhookId before delete_webhook' and 'check whether an event is already covered before calling create_webhook', with the rationale of avoiding duplicates. Provides clear context and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Publish an existing draft post to all of its target platforms immediately, skipping the schedule queue. Only valid on posts with status='draft' — returns an error for scheduled or already-published posts. Returns the post with delivery kicked off; individual platforms can still succeed or fail independently, so follow up with get_post or list_post_results to confirm the outcome.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes | Id of the draft post to publish, from list_posts or create_post. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: immediacy, error for non-draft posts, async delivery with independent platform results, and need for follow-up.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, each earning its place: action, precondition/error condition, and post-invocation guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one param, no output schema) and async nature, the description covers preconditions, immediate result, and required follow-up, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter postId, and the schema already includes context (from list_posts or create_post). The description adds no new information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Publish' and the resource 'an existing draft post', distinguishing it from siblings by restricting to draft status and skipping the schedule queue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states the precondition (post must be draft) and recommends follow-up via get_post or list_post_results, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like update_post.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Edit a draft or scheduled post before it publishes. Send only the fields to change — omitted fields keep their current values. Returns the updated post object. Posts that are already publishing, published, or failed cannot be edited. Common uses: reschedule by passing a new scheduledFor, fix a caption, swap attached media, or convert a draft to scheduled by passing status='scheduled' together with scheduledFor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes | Id of the draft or scheduled post to edit, from list_posts. | |
| status | No | Move between draft and scheduled. Scheduling requires scheduledFor to be set (here or previously). | |
| caption | No | Replacement post text. | |
| mediaIds | No | Replacement carousel media ids (up to 10). Mutually exclusive with libraryItemId. | |
| platforms | No | Replacement list of target platforms (replaces the whole list, not a merge). | |
| scheduledFor | No | New auto-publish time, ISO 8601 UTC, in the future. | |
| libraryItemId | No | Replacement single media item id. Mutually exclusive with mediaIds. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior and status restrictions but does not mention auth, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond returning the updated post. Adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus a list of common uses. No filler, front-loaded with purpose and key constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers partial updates, status restrictions, common scenarios, and return value. Missing error handling details, but overall very complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so schema already describes parameters. Description adds value by explaining the partial update pattern and common use cases, but not much new for individual parameters. Baseline 3 with minor uplift.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Edit a draft or scheduled post before it publishes,' providing a specific verb (edit) and resource (post). It distinguishes from siblings like create_post and delete_post by focusing on pre-publication edits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (draft/scheduled posts only) and when not to (already publishing/published/failed). Lists common uses like rescheduling, fixing captions, and changing status, providing clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
create_post8 fields changedInput schema / properties / caption / descriptionAdded value: +"The post text, used for all target platforms. Platform-specific length limits apply at publish time."Input schema / properties / is_draft / descriptionPrevious value: -"Convenience: true sets status='draft'. False (and with scheduledFor) sets status='scheduled'."New value: +"Convenience flag: true saves the post as a draft (status='draft'). False with scheduledFor set schedules it."Input schema / properties / libraryItemId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Single media item id"New value: +"Id of one media library item to attach (from list_media or import_media). Mutually exclusive with mediaIds."Input schema / properties / mediaIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"For carousels"New value: +"Media library item ids for a multi-image carousel post, up to 10. Mutually exclusive with libraryItemId. Platform support for carousels varies."Input schema / properties / platforms / descriptionAdded value: +"Platforms to publish to. Each must already be connected to the user's ViralNote account."Input schema / properties / platforms / items / enumAdded value: +[
+ "twitter",
+ "facebook",
+ "instagram",
+ "linkedin",
+ "reddit",
+ "youtube",
+ "bluesky",
+ "threads",
+ "tiktok",
+ "pinterest"
+]Input schema / properties / scheduledFor / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO 8601 UTC timestamp"New value: +"When to auto-publish, as an ISO 8601 UTC timestamp (e.g. 2026-07-10T09:00:00Z). Must be in the future. Required for scheduled posts; omit for drafts."Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Explicit status. Overrides is_draft if both passed."New value: +"Explicit lifecycle state. Overrides is_draft when both are passed."create_webhook2 fields changedInput schema / properties / events / descriptionAdded value: +"Event names to subscribe to, e.g. 'post.published', 'post.failed'."Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Publicly reachable HTTPS endpoint that will receive event POSTs."delete_media1 field changedInput schema / properties / mediaId / descriptionAdded value: +"Id of the media library item to delete, from list_media or import_media."delete_post1 field changedInput schema / properties / postId / descriptionAdded value: +"Id of the post to delete, from list_posts."delete_webhook1 field changedInput schema / properties / webhookId / descriptionAdded value: +"Id of the webhook subscription to delete, from list_webhooks."get_post1 field changedInput schema / properties / postId / descriptionAdded value: +"The post's id, as returned by list_posts or create_post."import_media6 fields changedInput schema / properties / bytes / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional file size in bytes for early rejection"New value: +"Optional declared file size in bytes, letting the API reject oversized files before downloading."Input schema / properties / data / descriptionPrevious value: -"base64-encoded file bytes, 3MB raw max (mutually exclusive with `url`)"New value: +"Base64-encoded file bytes, 3MB maximum raw size. Mutually exclusive with `url`; requires `mimeType`."Input schema / properties / mimeType / descriptionPrevious value: -"Required when using `data`; optional with `url`"New value: +"MIME type such as video/mp4 or image/png. Required with `data`; optional with `url` (detected from the download)."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Display name for the library item, including the file extension (e.g. 'clip-01.mp4')."Input schema / properties / source / descriptionAdded value: +"Origin of the file: 'dropbox' or 'canva' when url is a share link from those services; 'direct' for base64 data or a generic HTTPS URL."Input schema / properties / url / descriptionPrevious value: -"HTTPS direct-download URL (mutually exclusive with `data`)"New value: +"HTTPS direct-download URL of the file, up to 200MB. Mutually exclusive with `data`."list_analytics4 fields changedInput schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Opaque pagination cursor from the previous response. Omit for the first page."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum posts per page (1-50)."Input schema / properties / platform / descriptionPrevious value: -"e.g. instagram, twitter"New value: +"Only include metrics for posts targeting this platform. Omit for all platforms."Input schema / properties / platform / enumAdded value: +[
+ "twitter",
+ "facebook",
+ "instagram",
+ "linkedin",
+ "reddit",
+ "youtube",
+ "bluesky",
+ "threads",
+ "tiktok",
+ "pinterest"
+]list_media5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Opaque pagination cursor from the previous response. Omit for the first page."Input schema / properties / folder / descriptionAdded value: +"Only items in this library folder (exact name match). Omit for all folders."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum items per page (1-50)."Input schema / properties / sort / descriptionAdded value: +"Sort order by upload date."Input schema / properties / type / descriptionAdded value: +"Filter by media kind. 'clip' is a short-form clip generated by ViralNote's AI clipping."list_post_results3 fields changedInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum posts to return (1-50)."Input schema / properties / postId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional — restrict to one post."New value: +"Restrict to a single post's results. When set, status and limit are ignored."Input schema / properties / status / descriptionAdded value: +"Which recent posts to scan when postId is omitted: successfully published, or failed deliveries."list_posts5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cursor / descriptionPrevious value: -"Pagination cursor from a previous response"New value: +"Opaque pagination cursor from the previous response. Omit for the first page."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum posts per page (1-50)."Input schema / properties / platform / descriptionPrevious value: -"e.g. instagram, twitter, tiktok"New value: +"Only return posts that target this platform. Omit to include all platforms."Input schema / properties / platform / enumAdded value: +[
+ "twitter",
+ "facebook",
+ "instagram",
+ "linkedin",
+ "reddit",
+ "youtube",
+ "bluesky",
+ "threads",
+ "tiktok",
+ "pinterest"
+]Input schema / properties / status / descriptionAdded value: +"Filter by lifecycle state: draft (saved, no publish time), scheduled (queued for a future time), publishing (delivery in progress), published (delivered), failed (delivery errored). Omit to list all."publish_post1 field changedInput schema / properties / postId / descriptionAdded value: +"Id of the draft post to publish, from list_posts or create_post."update_post8 fields changedInput schema / properties / caption / descriptionAdded value: +"Replacement post text."Input schema / properties / libraryItemId / descriptionAdded value: +"Replacement single media item id. Mutually exclusive with mediaIds."Input schema / properties / mediaIds / descriptionAdded value: +"Replacement carousel media ids (up to 10). Mutually exclusive with libraryItemId."Input schema / properties / platforms / descriptionAdded value: +"Replacement list of target platforms (replaces the whole list, not a merge)."Input schema / properties / platforms / items / enumAdded value: +[
+ "twitter",
+ "facebook",
+ "instagram",
+ "linkedin",
+ "reddit",
+ "youtube",
+ "bluesky",
+ "threads",
+ "tiktok",
+ "pinterest"
+]Input schema / properties / postId / descriptionAdded value: +"Id of the draft or scheduled post to edit, from list_posts."Input schema / properties / scheduledFor / descriptionAdded value: +"New auto-publish time, ISO 8601 UTC, in the future."Input schema / properties / status / descriptionAdded value: +"Move between draft and scheduled. Scheduling requires scheduledFor to be set (here or previously)."v0.2.2create_postcreate_webhookdelete_mediadelete_postdelete_webhookget_postimport_medialist_analyticslist_medialist_post_resultslist_postslist_social_accountslist_webhookspublish_postupdate_postEvery tool has a clearly distinct purpose. For example, create_post, publish_post, and update_post are well-differentiated: one creates, one publishes, one edits. The list tools (posts, post_results, analytics, media, webhooks, social_accounts) each target different data, avoiding confusion.
All 15 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: create_post, delete_media, list_analytics, etc. No mixing of conventions (e.g., camelCase or vague verbs like 'process'), making the tool surface predictable and easy to navigate.
15 tools is well-scoped for a social media scheduling service. The set covers core operations on posts, media, webhooks, analytics, and social accounts without unnecessary overlap or bloat.
The tool surface covers the main lifecycle: create, read, update, delete for posts and media; plus publishing, analytics, and webhook management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no single media fetch by id, no tool to retry failed posts), but agents can work around them effectively.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Connect any AI agent to 11+ social platforms: schedule, publish & track posts via hosted MCP.
Schedule, generate and publish social posts to X, LinkedIn, Instagram, Threads and YouTube
Draft, schedule and publish social posts to nine platforms from any AI agent.
Social media MCP: publish, schedule & analyze posts on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn & X
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/viralnote/mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
