remap_assetRe-crawl the project website and refresh its owned pages. Use when get_project_asset shows mappingStatus "error" or owned pages look stale. Rate-limited per site; returns an error naming the wait time if the cooldown is active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose. | |
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectId"
-]New value: +[
+ "projectId",
+ "context"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses per-site rate limiting and the cooldown error message behavior. It does not detail exactly what destructive changes occur, but destructiveHint=true already signals mutation risk, and "refresh its owned pages" conveys overwrite 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?
Two sentences front-load the action and trigger condition, then add the rate-limit caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the title or schema.
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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers the trigger, the action, and the relevant error behavior. It does not state the success return or whether the crawl is asynchronous, but those are minor gaps for this simplicity level.
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 describes context well and projectId is a conventional identifier, so the 50% coverage is not severely misleading. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving projectId implicit, but an agent can reasonably infer it from the get_project_asset trigger.
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 states a clear action: "Re-crawl the project website and refresh its owned pages." It names a specific trigger via get_project_asset's mappingStatus, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar-seeming siblings like resync_asset_profile, so it stops short of full 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?
The description gives explicit use conditions: when get_project_asset shows mappingStatus "error" or owned pages look stale. It does not describe when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the stated context is enough to route an agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.