The Marketing Vault

Write page copy

write_page_copy

Creates sales pages, opening sections, registration pages, low-ticket pages, video sales letter scripts or mechanism-focused copy. Output is saved to the Library and uses one generation. Nothing is sent or published.

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": {
      "template": "<template>",
      "details": "<details>"
    },
    "name": "write_page_copy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`details`	Yes	What the user wants, including supplied source text, goals or constraints.
`template`	Yes	sales-page: Write a sales page. above-the-fold: Write three opening page sections. opt-in-registration: Write an opt-in or registration page. low-ticket-tripwire: Write a low-ticket offer page. vsl-script: Write a video sales letter script, not a video. mechanism-critique: Critique the mechanism and write no-promises copy.
`page_type`	No	Page type for the selected template.
`constraints`	No	Constraints for the selected template.
`offer_context`	No	Offer context for the selected template.
`variable_name`	No	Existing mechanism or copy to critique.
`conversion_action`	No	Conversion action for the selected template.
`business_profile_id`	No	Business profile id. Required when the account has multiple Businesses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the description's added value is telling the agent that output lands in the Library, consumes exactly one generation, and is never sent or published. That is exactly the side-effect detail annotations cannot express, and it removes the risk of the agent assuming this tool delivers customer-facing content. It does not cover failure modes or whether outputs can be regenerated for free, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero filler. The capability statement comes first and the side-effect constraint (saved to Library, one generation, nothing published) is front-loaded in the second sentence where an agent will actually read it before invoking.

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?

For an 8-parameter, 100%-documented generation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two facts the schema cannot: where the result goes and what is not done with it. The only gap is that the cost/pagination implications of "one generation" and the multiple-business requirement are left to the schema's business_profile_id description.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the template enum already documents each of the six modes, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description merely echoes the output list, adding no new meaning about how details, offer_context, variable_name, or business_profile_id interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description opens with a concrete verb ("Creates") and enumerates the specific page artifacts produced: sales pages, opening sections, registration pages, low-ticket pages, VSL scripts, mechanism copy. That enumeration effectively separates it from ad copy, email copy, and blog article siblings without naming them. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to write_ad_copy, write_email_copy, write_blog_article, or write_sales_scripts; the agent must infer routing from the artifact list alone. Nothing states prerequisites or the conditions under which a different writer tool is preferable.

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

All The Marketing Vault tools Inspect

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

Need Help?