Skip to main content
Glama

seodraft

by app.seodraft
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Approve post

approve_post
Destructive

Approve one article: the human's act, in one call. It refuses unless the last run_gate check passed (degraded reason gate-failed, and nothing changes), then moves the article to ready and, when this workspace has a delivery destination and a token saved, delivers it in the same act. That is the whole approval: there is no separate deliver step to remember, and there is still no publish anywhere in this product. delivered is the receipt or null when nothing is configured to deliver to. For a git destination (provider github) it carries label, repo, branch, path, previousPath, commitUrl, htmlUrl, updated and pendingImageSlots. For Sanity (provider sanity) the draft drafts.seodraft-<id> is created or patched, never published and never deleted, and re-delivering patches only the fields seodraft maps; the receipt carries label, projectId, dataset, documentId, studioUrl, updated, pendingImageSlots and degradations (what the destination's Portable Text could not carry, which the human fixes in Studio). If the destination refuses the write the article stays ready (the approval was valid) and degraded reason delivery-failed carries the CMS's own reason; re-approving retries the delivery and overwrites the same draft. Intended to record an approval the user gave explicitly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
workspaceIdNoThe workspace this call acts on, as listed by list_workspaces. Left out, the call uses the workspace the account is in right now.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspaceId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The workspace this call acts on, as listed by list_workspaces. Left out, the call uses the workspace the account is in right now.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the gate-refusal behavior and its degraded reason, the ready-state transition, inline delivery, the exact shape of the delivered receipt per destination provider, retry semantics, and that Sanity drafts are never published or deleted. This is exactly the mutation context an agent needs that the hint flags alone cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action and prerequisite before the receipt details, and most sentences carry behavioral weight. It is dense and long-winded in the receipt enumeration, but that detail is genuinely useful for a no-output-schema tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the delivered receipt fields, degradation reasons and failure behavior. The only meaningful omission is any description of the id parameter and the distinction between the two input fields.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description never mentions the id or workspaceId parameters, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. With only 50% schema description coverage, the required id parameter is documented nowhere at all, leaving a real gap the description should have filled.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Approve one article: the human's act, in one call') and immediately scopes what approval means in this product. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_gate, deliver_draft and delivery_status by stating it performs approval plus delivery in one act with no separate deliver step.

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 states the precondition ('refuses unless the last run_gate check passed') and the intent ('record an approval the user gave explicitly'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It also clarifies that delivery happens inline rather than via a separate step, implicitly steering away from the deliver_draft sibling, though it never names that alternative outright.

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

All seodraft toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources