record_article_app_eventComponent-only privacy-safe operational telemetry. This tool never accepts document content, visible identifiers, review prose, or URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | Yes | ||
| focus | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| displayMode | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recorded | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only; the description adds useful context by guaranteeing it is component-only, privacy-safe, and never accepts document content, visible identifiers, review prose, or URLs. This fills in important behavioral constraints beyond what the annotations provide.
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?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's category and free of filler. It could add one usage-oriented sentence without becoming bloated, but it is otherwise well-structured.
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 flat enum-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient, but it lacks parameter-level guidance and a concrete usage trigger. An agent may still be unsure when to send event='action' versus filling in action, focus, or status.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters, but it only says what parameters cannot contain. The enum lists help, yet there is no guidance explaining relationships between event, action, focus, or when each optional parameter applies.
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 title supplies the verb ('Record') and the description names the resource as component-only privacy-safe operational telemetry, which clearly separates it from the content-editing sibling tools. The description is a noun phrase rather than a complete action sentence, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implies use for privacy-safe telemetry by emphasizing that it never accepts document content or identifiers, but it never explicitly says when to call it or names an alternative. It gives contextual guidance without a clear trigger or exclusion.
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 have clearly distinct purposes across article CRUD, review workflows, publishing, and conversion/export. Minor confusion can arise between convert_document and start_article_export (and their corresponding status checkers), but the descriptions explicitly differentiate arbitrary content conversion from exporting stored documents. The render_article tool's broad contextual wording overlaps conceptually with several actions, though its actual function (opening the reader) is unique.
All 22 tool names follow a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as list_articles, accept_suggestion, start_article_export, and unpublish_article. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or camelCase outliers, making the naming highly predictable.
At 22 tools, the server sits above the ideal 3-15 range and feels somewhat heavy for an MCP surface. The inclusion of record_article_app_event, a component-only telemetry tool with no agent-facing value, adds to this heaviness. However, the breadth of the domain—documents, collaboration, publishing, and conversion—largely justifies the count.
The tool surface covers article lifecycle, review threads, publishing, export/conversion, and presence well, covering most common workflows. A notable gap is the lack of any delete_article or trash operation, leaving no way to remove documents. Additionally, updates are limited to anchored edits via edit_article, with no direct full-content replacement option.