Narrareach

Generate article briefs

generate_article_briefs

Plan long-form articles for the writer: 3 or 5 briefs, each with a working title, the question it answers, why now, the pillar, a 4 to 6 section outline, and evidence links. source "topics" builds on timely topics in the writer's pillars (the same as list_topic_suggestions), "profile" on their pillars, niche and past articles, "own" on a topic you pass. Briefs use the writer's voice and add no facts beyond their material and the evidence; show the evidence links when you present a timely brief. Takes about 20 seconds. When briefs is empty, emptyReason says why: no_topics (nothing timely in their pillars right now; try source "profile") or no_usable_briefs (try again). Briefs are free; 10 runs a day. To have Narrareach write one into a full draft, call queue_article_draft with its id. Available on the Revenue Writer plan and above. Counts as five requests against the rate limit.

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "generate_article_briefs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	How many briefs. Defaults to 3.
`topic`	No	Required when source is "own": the subject to plan articles on.
`source`	Yes	What the briefs are built on.
`pillarId`	No	Optional pillar id (from list_topic_suggestions) to plan for one pillar.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`briefs`	Yes
`batchId`	Yes
`emptyReason`	Yes
`connectedAccount`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses latency (~20 seconds), quota (10 runs/day, briefs free), rate-limit cost (counts as five requests), plan gating (Revenue Writer and above), a content constraint (uses the writer's voice, adds no facts beyond provided material), and an output-behavior detail (show evidence links when presenting a timely brief). Nothing here conflicts with readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true, which correctly signal a generation call with external context.

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-loaded with the deliverable, then source semantics, then failure modes, then cost/next step — a sensible ordering. It is dense and mostly earns its sentences, though the latency, quota, plan, and rate-limit sentences could be consolidated without losing meaning.

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?

With an output schema present, the description still supplies the non-obvious behavioral facts an agent needs: empty-result reasons, voice/fact constraints, evidence-link presentation rule, and the follow-up tool. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by unpacking the source enum semantics and implying the count choice ("3 or 5 briefs"). It does not restate the pillarId's provenance or the topic length bound, leaving those to the schema, so it is additive but not fully explicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Plan long-form articles" / briefs) and enumerates the content of each brief, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also distinguishes itself from list_topic_suggestions (explicitly, for the "topics" source) and names queue_article_draft as the downstream step.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explains what each of the three source values means and when each applies ("topics" = timely pillar topics like list_topic_suggestions, "profile" = pillars/niche/past articles, "own" = a topic you pass), and prescribes a recovery path when briefs is empty (no_topics → try source "profile"; no_usable_briefs → try again). It also points to queue_article_draft for turning a brief into a draft.

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

All Narrareach 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?