Skip to main content
Glama

VarynForge

by com.varynforge

Generate article brief

generate_article_brief

Forge a writer-ready brief from an article suggestion. channel picks the brief template: article (default, SEO article outline), reels (hook/beats/shot list), youtube (retention beats/chapters), x (thread posts), linkedin (carousel slide deck: cover hook, one-idea slides, recap, CTA). A suggestion holds one brief per channel — generating a second channel adds a brief without touching the others. When the suggestion already has an article brief, channel briefs DERIVE from it (its key points, hook, and keyStats flow into the channel shape) and are free — they do not consume a daily brief slot. Idempotent per channel: if that channel already has a brief, returns it without consuming a slot; pass force: true to regenerate it. When regenerating, pass guidance — corrective direction the forge must follow (e.g. the angle the operator actually wants, a section to drop, an audience correction) — instead of re-rolling blind and hoping. Free tier: 10/day for article briefs and non-derived channel briefs. Returns { entitlement } when the daily cap is reached.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNo
channelNo
contextYesOne sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.
guidanceNo
projectIdYes
articleSuggestionIdYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "articleSuggestionId",
-  "projectId"
-]New value: +[
+  "articleSuggestionId",
+  "projectId",
+  "context"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / guidance
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 2000,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

This is a write operation, and annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond that by disclosing idempotency per channel, the free derivation rule, quota behavior, the daily cap returning { entitlement }, and regeneration semantics with guidance.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: channel templates, one-brief-per-channel behavior, derivation, force, guidance, and quota behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses backticks and examples for clarity without waste.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 6 parameters, 5 channel variants, and nuanced quota/derivation rules, the description covers the full behavior landscape. Although there is no output schema, the only output mentioned is the entitlement cap response, which is acceptable given the rich success-path context already provided.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, but the description adds substantial meaning for channel (enumerating template types), force (regenerate idempotently), and guidance (corrective direction). It does not explain projectId/articleSuggestionId, but those are inferable as IDs; overall it compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Forge a writer-ready brief from an article suggestion." It explains what the tool creates and differentiates it from read/export siblings like get_article_brief and download_brief_markdown by focusing on generation.

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 gives clear usage context: channel selection, derivation rules, when to pass force, when to pass guidance, and free-tier limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the behavioral context effectively routes the agent.

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

All VarynForge 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions carefully cross-reference close alternatives (e.g., add_article_suggestion vs create_article_suggestion_with_input vs accept_idea). A few brief/read variants like get_article_brief, get_write_handoff, and download_brief_markdown could still be confused despite helpful explanations, so the set is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern throughout: get_*, list_*, create_*, update_*, set_*, add_*, delete_*, start_*, expand_*, etc. Even the less common names like lint_draft and remap_asset are still clear verb_noun constructions.

Tool Count1/5

At 57 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold for a single MCP server. Even for a broad content workflow, the surface is overwhelming and would benefit from consolidation or splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full content lifecycle: project setup, research runs, opportunity clustering, suggestion creation, brief generation, drafting, linting, publishing, reporting, and account management. Minor gaps exist—destinations and projects cannot be deleted via MCP, and there is no direct update for article suggestion metadata—but these are workable via the web UI or existing tools.

Resources