VarynForge

Lint draft

lint_draft

Submit a draft for verification against its brief. Returns a pass/flag verdict with per-check detail. Pass moves the article to ready_to_publish; flag moves it to draft_ready for revision. channel (article | reels | youtube | x | linkedin) declares WHICH of the suggestion's per-channel briefs the draft is graded against AND the submission shape — always pass it for non-article content; when omitted, the channel is inferred from format. Submission shapes (get_lint_rubric returns the same spec + the numeric limits): article = markdown draft; x = thread text with one post per --- separated section, NO links in post bodies (put links in a reply); linkedin = post/caption text first, optional --- separated carousel slides after, NO links in the body (put links in the first comment); reels/youtube = the production SCRIPT — the process is brief -> script -> video, this gate validates the script, and the video is produced after it passes (published URL is recorded at publish time, not here). format labels the storage destination: prefer one of the project's destination type ids (see list_destinations) so receipts and drafts group per destination — re-submitting the same format replaces that destination's draft, a different format keeps both. The response reports the suggestion's post-lint status and a nextAction hint; thresholds is the article ratio block on the article channel and null otherwise (channel limits live in get_lint_rubric checkParams). waiveChecks marks check ids the OPERATOR deliberately deviates from (e.g. a brief section they dropped on purpose): waived checks still run and are recorded as waived in the receipt, but no longer fail the verdict — only pass ids the operator explicitly waived, never waive on your own initiative. Verdicts and drafts are stored per format and re-readable any time via get_draft_status (free — never re-lint to recover a lost verdict). Status transitions are forward-only: a flagged re-submit never demotes a suggestion already at ready_to_publish or published. Daily-capped (cap and remaining are in get_account_status limits); re-submitting an unchanged draft is served from cache.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`draft`	Yes
`format`	No
`channel`	No
`context`	Yes	One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.
`waiveChecks`	No
`suggestionId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

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: -[
-  "suggestionId",
-  "draft"
-]New value: +[
+  "suggestionId",
+  "draft",
+  "context"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedAug 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / waiveChecks

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "word_count",
+      "primary_keywords",
+      "outline_coverage",
+      "key_points",
+      "faq_coverage",
+      "internal_links",
+      "intent_alignment",
+      "single_h1",
+      "heading_levels",
+      "h2_count",
+      "intro_present",
+      "conclusion_present",
+      "paragraph_length",
+      "no_draft_leaks",
+      "no_links",
+      "post_length",
+      "post_count",
+      "hook_fold",
+      "char_cap",
+      "char_count",
+      "hashtag_count",
+      "slide_count",
+      "slide_length",
+      "script_length",
+      "cta_present",
+      "media_lint"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 26,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedAug 3, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing state transitions, forward-only status rules, per-format draft replacement, waiver behavior, daily caps, cache behavior, and the script-vs-video gate. This gives the agent an accurate model of side effects and constraints without needing to call the tool.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering high-stakes behavior that an agent must know before invoking. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and dense semicolon-separated details keep related concepts together.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, absent output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It documents response fields, parameter behaviors, side effects, edge cases, alternatives, and operational constraints, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It thoroughly covers channel semantics and submission shapes, format storage implications, and waiveChecks authorization rules. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Submit a draft for verification against its brief' and specifies the pass/flag outcome with per-check detail. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like get_draft_status and get_lint_rubric, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: never re-lint to recover a verdict, use get_draft_status instead, and use get_lint_rubric for numeric limits. It also gives concrete conditions like 'always pass channel for non-article content' and explains when re-submission is cached.

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

All VarynForge 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

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

Need Help?