Skip to main content
Glama

devtune_get_action_draft

Get an action's content draft, for accounts with content drafts. draftKind is the draft the action takes now: page (the Page Drafter writes a whole new page for a create action) or section_edits (the Section Editor writes a change list for a refresh action), with agentKey naming the agent; both are null for an action that takes no draft. briefState says whether its brief is ready (outdated: written before the current brief format, so it must be regenerated to draft), and targetPage, for section edits, is the page edited (the action's own target, else its ready brief's page on an owned domain), whether it is locked, and briefRecommendedUrl when the brief recommends a different page. models lists the models a run can use with each one's per-run credit estimate. run is the draft run in flight, or the last one that ended without a draft. versions lists the current draft and up to 10 earlier versions, newest first: each has its draftKind, title, contentMarkdown (the page, or the change list rendered as markdown), changeList for section edits (each change's heading, current text, proposed text and reason), status (current for the draft the action shows, superseded otherwise), timestamps, briefId and runId, and factCheck: its status (checked, partial or unavailable), the sentences still flagged, each with its reason (unsupported or contradicted by the customer's own site, not_in_brief: a product fact the brief's facts list does not state, with siteJudgment saying whether the site states it, contradicted_by_source: a claim about another product that an external fact on the brief's facts list contradicts, with that fact as the brief words it and the source it cites, or competitor_link: the sentence links to one of the project's configured competitors, with the link in linkUrl) and the pages it was judged against and any contradicting quote, how many were flagged before and after the agent's fix pass, and coverage: how many sentences the check reviewed as possible claims (questions and short fragments are not counted), and of those how many were settled (restated from the brief's facts list, judged against the site, or contradicted by a source on the brief's facts list), unsettled, not checked, third-party claims (about another product, company, standard or source) read but not verified (notVerified), set aside as guidance, examples, headings or opinion, or marked [Needs source], with hasGap true when any were not judged and settled. current is the current version. Drafts are never published by DevTune.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionIdYesUUID of the action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers substantial behavioral context: draftKind semantics, briefState staleness, run-in-flight behavior, and the guarantee that 'Drafts are never published by DevTune.' It omits operational traits such as permissions, error behavior, or pagination, but the behavioral disclosure is far above a bare getter.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the remainder is a single very dense run-on paragraph covering every nested field, which is hard to parse. The detail largely earns its place because no output schema exists, yet the lack of structure works against readability.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must document the return shape, and it does so extensively (versions, factCheck states, coverage, current). For a complex nested read tool this is close to complete, though the field documentation is dense and could be organized better.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is a single UUID parameter, so the schema already documents actionId fully. The description adds no syntax or meaning for the input beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Get an action's content draft'), which clearly separates it from siblings like devtune_get_action_brief or devtune_get_actions. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

The qualifier 'for accounts with content drafts' implies scope of applicability, and a reader can infer you call this to inspect an existing draft. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_action_brief or when a draft won't exist, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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