Skip to main content
Glama

Idiolect AI

by app.idiolect

Rewrite

rewrite

Change prose the user supplied while preserving the meaning, facts and deliberate details that must survive. Use this for anything from a light edit to a substantial rewrite or a recast for another writing situation. Idiolect AI applies the user's established writing patterns automatically. If more personal writing is needed, this tool returns the precise shortfall so you can gather only that evidence, obtain permission to store it and retry the same task. Do not check profile state first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe prose to change. Treat it as source material whose meaning, facts and deliberate details must survive unless the user explicitly asks to change them. Never mix the user's rewrite instruction into this field.
formatNoThe new form only when the user explicitly asks to recast the piece: email, Slack message, social post or essay. Omit this for ordinary edits and rewrites.
evidenceNoUse only after this writing tool says personalization needs more evidence. Include the exact natural writing the user actually authored and has explicitly agreed Idiolect AI may store for personalization. Prefer the smallest trustworthy set from a writing situation close to the current task; broaden only when needed. Exclude prompts, AI-written text, templates, boilerplate, signatures, quoted or forwarded text and anything with uncertain authorship.
instructionsNoWhat the user wants changed, such as shorter, clearer, warmer, less formal, more direct or only lightly edited. Keep this separate from the prose itself. Omit it when the request is already unambiguous.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nextYes
textNoThe finished writing. Present only when status is complete.
errorNo
statusYesWhere the original writing task stands: finished, waiting for approved writing evidence, ready for the same task to be retried, still preparing personalization or unable to complete.
messageYesA concise explanation of what happened and, when needed, the exact next step.
neededWritingNo
omitEvidenceOnRetryNoTrue when approved evidence has been accepted and the same writing task should now be retried without sending that evidence again.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses automatic application of the user's established writing patterns, the shortfall-return mechanism when more personal writing is needed, and the instruction not to pre-check profile state. These are behavioral details that materially shape how the agent invokes the tool, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Five sentences, all informative, with the main purpose front-loaded. It is slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence ideal, but each sentence contributes either scope, behavior, or workflow guidance.

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 tool of this complexity, the description supplies the core workflow: preserve meaning and facts, automatic personalization, evidence shortfall/retry loop, and no profile pre-check. The comprehensive input schema and presence of an output schema carry the parameter and return detail, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'text' parameter ('prose the user supplied') and recasting, but it does not add new param-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and object: 'Change prose the user supplied...' and defines scope as light edit, substantial rewrite, or recast. This makes it clearly a transformation of existing user text, distinct in spirit from the sibling 'write' which would produce new text.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for anything from a light edit to a substantial rewrite or a recast for another writing situation,' giving clear invocation context. It also says not to check profile state first. It does not explicitly name the alternative 'write' or state when not to use the tool, so it stops one point 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 Idiolect AI 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools are clearly distinct: 'write' creates new text while 'rewrite' modifies supplied prose. Each description explicitly states the different input and purpose, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to select.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names are single lowercase verbs that form a natural pair: write and rewrite. The naming is simple, predictable, and consistent in style.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools feel minimal for a writing assistant, but the server's scope is tightly focused on generating and revising text. It is borderline rather than severely underprovisioned.

Completeness4/5

The core creation and revision workflows are covered, and the integrated profile shortfall mechanism handles personalization. A minor gap is the lack of any tool to manage or inspect the writing profile directly, but agents can work around it.

Resources