Skip to main content
Glama

VarynForge

by com.varynforge

Register derived asset

register_derived_asset

Register a derived asset (LinkedIn carousel PDF, social post, video, image) produced from an article suggestion. Appends a distribution-ledger row so the suggestion shows everything it produced — the article plus its derivatives — for content-ROI reporting (get_article_suggestion returns them as derivedAssets). Pass channel (reels | youtube | x | linkedin) so the app can show per-channel distribution status; register again with a new URL for repeat posts on the same channel — every registration is kept. scheduledFor records a future post date from an external scheduler (Buffer etc.) for display only — VarynForge never posts on your behalf. Derivative rows never affect publish status or Search Console attribution; use mark_article_published for the article itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
kindYes
channelNo
contextYesOne sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.
scheduledForNo
suggestionIdYes

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: -[
-  "suggestionId",
-  "kind",
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "suggestionId",
+  "kind",
+  "url",
+  "context"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the minimal annotations by explaining that the tool appends a distribution-ledger row, that every registration is kept, and that derivative rows never affect publish status or Search Console attribution. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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: purpose, examples, ledger behavior, repeat registrations, scheduling semantics, and non-effects are all covered without filler. The length is justified by the amount of context necessary.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent how derivatives are surfaced later through get_article_suggestion and clarifies all behavioral side effects. It does not state the immediate return value, but the read-back path compensates well for a register-style tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 17%, the description compensates by enumerating exact channel values, explaining scheduledFor as display-only from an external scheduler, and describing the relationship to suggestionId via the article suggestion. It does not fully enumerate all kind values (omits 'other') or explicitly define URL semantics, but most parameters are meaningfully covered.

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?

States a specific action ('Register a derived asset') and ties it to an article suggestion, listing concrete derivative types. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting what it is not — the article's own publishing state is handled by mark_article_published.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for the article itself ('use mark_article_published for the article itself') and explains the registration workflow, including repeat posts on the same channel. It also sets a clear boundary: scheduledFor is display-only and VarynForge never posts on your behalf.

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