Skip to main content
Glama

VarynForge

by com.varynforge

Set excluded terms

set_excluded_terms
Destructive

Set the project-level exclusion terms — products or topics the operator explicitly does NOT sell (e.g. "wedding suite", "free template", "printing"). Keywords mentioning any term are down-weighted in opportunity scoring and dropped from the content-plan harvest, before results reach the operator. Replaces the whole list; pass [] to clear. Survives research re-runs, unlike per-cluster dismissal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termsYes
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",
-  "terms"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "terms",
+  "context"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals the full behavioral profile: replacing the entire list, clearing via [], down-weighting in opportunity scoring, dropping from content-plan harvest, and persistence across research re-runs. It also explains the practical impact ('before results reach the operator'), which is exactly the kind of behavioral context 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?

Three tightly written sentences deliver definition, examples, effect, destructive behavior, clearing semantics, and persistence. Every sentence adds distinct value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 destructive state-changing tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how it behaves, what the destructive semantics are, and how to clear the list. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to invoke it and what arguments to pass.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the most important parameter 'terms' by explaining its meaning, giving examples, and documenting [] as a valid clearing value. It doesn't address projectId or context, but projectId is self-evident and context already has a clear schema description, so the gap is minor.

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 names a specific action ('Set'), a specific resource ('project-level exclusion terms'), and explains what those terms mean with concrete examples. It clearly defines the tool's scope and effect, making it easy to distinguish from other project configuration tools even without opening the schema.

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 context: use this for project-level exclusions when the operator explicitly does not sell certain products/topics, and notes it survives research re-runs. It contrasts with per-cluster dismissal, though it doesn't name a specific sibling tool or give an explicit when-not-to-use instruction, so it falls just short of a 5.

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