Skip to main content
Glama

devtune_get_action_brief

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the stored brief for a specific action, including readiness status, whether research was cut short, settled credits used, generated timestamp, and the brief when one is ready. briefFormat 2 briefs return briefMarkdown (the brief, then an Evidence section that is context, not specification) plus the structured brief (task, outline, facts with sources, each project or external fact carrying sourceRef, the supplied project data ref or source packet URL it restates, and sections, the zero-based indexes of the outline sections that use it; briefs written before refs or sections omit them; leaveOut, rules, doneWhen) and evidence objects; a draft states only product facts on the facts list. The optional inboundLinkPlan names up to three related-page edits with source sections, excerpts, suggested anchors, a target and a pinned crawl generation. edgeStatus not_observed_in_generation is a suggestion based on that generation, not a measured missing or live link. Current locked or retiring source and target pages have their edits removed on read. Stale or unverifiable current brief inputs omit the plan while preserving the stored target brief. The single-page drafter leaves related edits outstanding for human approval and a fresh crawl. briefFormat 1 briefs return Markdown only and cannot be drafted from until regenerated. When claim checks are enabled for the project and one has run, claimCheck reports how the brief's facts (or, for a format 1 brief, its claim references) held up against the project's owned content, searched for each claim: coverage (claims checked, claims whose owned-content search failed, and claims set aside by source type) and a judgment per claim with its source (a site page with its URL, the project profile, DevTune's own analysis, an external source, or general knowledge), the pages a claim that is not supported was judged against and the quoted passage for a confirmed contradiction. It annotates the brief and never changes it. robotsTxtDraft carries the action's drafted robots.txt edit, or null: per robots.txt file, the edited file and a unified diff (at most 16 KB) that add only the narrowest Allow rules, drafted from the file the audit read, or a no_change or unavailable status with its reason. An allow with match exact_page opens only that sampled page, not everything the blocking rule covers; widening it is the customer's call. A sampled page that redirects is never drafted, its first hop included: it is listed in skipped with reason redirected and the sampled page URL. Every read re-checks a stored draft against the current acknowledgements and primary domains: it comes back unavailable with reason out_of_date when it would change an acknowledged URL, check_unavailable when that check could not run (try again), too_large_to_check when it is too large to check, or an ownership reason when its host is not itself a primary domain (ownership is exact-host only). A robots.txt reached through a redirect, from either side, is never drafted (robots_redirected). If the project has any acknowledged restriction for a crawler scope, no edit is drafted or shown for that crawler (acknowledged_scope). A human applies it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "actionId": "<actionId>"
    },
    "name": "devtune_get_action_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionIdYesUUID of the action to load the brief for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description goes well beyond them, disclosing that every read re-validates a stored draft and can return unavailable with out_of_date, check_unavailable, too_large_to_check, ownership, robots_redirected and acknowledged_scope reasons. It also states that claim checks annotate but never change the brief, and that locked/retiring target edits are stripped on read. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a very long, multi-topic block with run-on sentences that chain return-value variants, edge-status semantics, draft re-validation and robots.txt rules together without headings or ordering. The purpose is front-loaded, but most edge cases (crawl-generation pinning, redirect first-hop handling, 16 KB diff cap) are buried mid-paragraph where an agent is unlikely to parse them correctly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns — and it does, covering briefFormat 1 vs 2 shapes, the structured brief fields, evidence objects, inboundLinkPlan, claimCheck, and robotsTxtDraft with its statuses. For a complex read tool with no output schema, this is functionally complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter, actionId, whose UUID semantics are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage; the description adds nothing about it. With schema coverage this high, the baseline 3 applies — the description carries no extra parameter meaning but does not need to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening states a specific verb and resource: get the stored brief for a specific action, and it names the payload (readiness status, cut-short research, credits, timestamp, brief). It is clearly a read of an already-generated artifact. It never names the sibling that would compete for the same intent (devtune_generate_action_brief / devtune_start_action_draft), so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'the stored brief' versus drafting/regeneration, plus 'cannot be drafted from until regenerated' for format 1 and 'A human applies it' for the robots.txt edit. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing to devtune_generate_action_brief when no brief is stored yet.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources