Skip to main content
Glama

VarynForge

by com.varynforge

Resync asset profile

resync_asset_profile
Destructive

Re-read the project website and re-infer the asset profile (name, description, primary offer, benefits, differentiators, use cases) from its current content. Use before rendering a report when get_pitch_report_payload flags assetProfile.syncedBeforeRun — the stored profile facts may have drifted since they were written. Overwrites the profile facts (fields the site no longer supports inferring are left unchanged, never nulled) and stamps profileSyncedAt; the niche is not touched. Rate-limited per site; returns an error naming the wait time if the cooldown is active.

Input Schema

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

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: -[
-  "projectId"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "context"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses substantial behavior: overwriting profile facts, preserving unsupported fields rather than nulling them, stamping profileSyncedAt, leaving the niche untouched, and rate-limiting with a wait-time error. This is far more than the annotation alone provides.

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 efficient: action first, then trigger/usage, then side effects, then rate-limit behavior. Every sentence adds information and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, effects, edge behavior, and error conditions well. The only minor gap is that it does not state what a successful call returns, but the side effects and trigger context are sufficiently clear for an agent to proceed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: context is described but projectId is not. The description does not add parameter-level meaning; it references 'the project website' but never maps that to projectId, and the context parameter's schema description already covers its semantics. It fails to compensate for the undocumented projectId.

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 uses a specific verb ('re-read', 're-infer') and a concrete resource ('asset profile'), and enumerates exactly which fields are inferred. It also implies differentiation from the sibling update_asset_profile by focusing on website re-inference rather than manual editing.

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 an explicit trigger condition: use before rendering a report when get_pitch_report_payload flags assetProfile.syncedBeforeRun, because facts may have drifted. It does not explicitly name alternatives like update_asset_profile or state when-not-to-use scenarios, though it does clarify that the niche is not touched.

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