Skip to main content
Glama

Niche — Editorial Intelligence

by com.nicheangle

Create drafts

niche_draft_create

Niche draft content: lock the chosen angle and turn it into platform-native social drafts (LinkedIn post, X thread, Instagram, newsletter/long-form), ready to review and publish, the downstream payoff once the story and angle are decided. Returns immediately with status=cp3_generating; poll niche_session_state until outputs[] is populated. Each output carries its trust data nested under outputs[i].trust: source_faithfulness_score, source_ungrounded_claims[], source_diversity_passed, source_recency_passed, overall_severity, a severity-tagged flags[], and verifier_blocked_reason/verifier_blocked_claim when a fabrication was refused. (No top-level verifier_audit field; read outputs[i].trust.) BRAND: voice/offer/CTA come from the run's bound brand. If this account has MULTIPLE brands and the run isn't bound to one, this returns brand_choice_required with brand_options[] and generates NOTHING. STOP, ask the user which brand, then re-call with brand_id (or brand_id:'none' to draft deliberately unbranded). A single/default brand binds automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
angle_idYesid from niche_angle_propose.angles[].id
brand_idNoBind this draft to a brand (its voice/offer/CTA). Usually unnecessary (the run inherits the scan's brand). Pass it to answer a `brand_choice_required` on a multi-brand account, or `'none'` to draft deliberately unbranded.
session_idYes
estimate_onlyNoWhen true, return the per-platform content credit cost without locking the angle or generating. Quote a price before committing.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations give no safety hints (all false), so description carries the burden. It discloses async behavior (returns status=cp3_generating, poll session_state), trust data nested under outputs[i].trust, and the brand_choice_required refusal mode. However, 'lock the chosen angle' is vague about whether the angle is consumed/irreversible, and no mention of rate limits or cost beyond estimate_only.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (functionality, async/polling, trust data, brand edge case). Though long, every sentence adds operational value. A bit dense but not bloated; front-loads the core purpose.

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 a complex async tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, async flow, trust data specifics, and brand branching. Missing a clear description of the output object structure (beyond trust fields) and how outputs[] items are shaped, but sufficient for invocation and follow-up polling.

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 covers 75% of parameters (angle_id, brand_id, estimate_only described). Description repeats brand_id behavior but adds little beyond schema; session_id remains undocumented, and estimate_only isn't mentioned in description. Thus no significant added meaning over schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: lock an angle and create platform-native drafts (LinkedIn, X thread, Instagram, newsletter/long-form). It distinguishes from sibling tools like publish/revise by emphasizing 'ready to review and publish' and 'downstream payoff once the story and angle are decided.'

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?

It provides context for when to use (after angle is decided) and describes the multi-brand workflow including stopping to ask the user and re-calling with brand_id. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the workflow implies sequencing. Slightly short of 5 due to lack of explicit 'when not to use this tool.'

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

All Niche — Editorial Intelligence 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct across the pipeline—discovery, brand setup, drafting, rendering, publishing, session management—and descriptions are detailed. Minor overlap exists between niche_signal_scan and niche_intelligence_query (both discovery) and between niche_add_output and niche_draft_create (both generate outputs), but the descriptions clearly differentiate them. Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the `niche_` prefix and snake_case, but the verb/noun order is inconsistent: some are verb-first (add_output, render_image_card, list_sessions) while many are noun-first (angle_propose, brand_kit_ingest, draft_create, session_cancel). This mixed convention requires the agent to learn each name individually rather than predict the pattern.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is on the heavy side but appropriate for the platform's scope—full editorial intelligence from discovery to publish. No redundant tools, and each covers a distinct aspect, but the count is high enough that it feels dense and may require orientation (which niche_whoami addresses).

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full workflow: discovery, angle proposal, drafting, revision, publishing, rendering, asset attachment, brand setup, and session management. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct read tool for the current BrandKit (only via ingest status) and no hard-delete tool (session_cancel mentions the REST endpoint instead), but these are edge cases and agents can work around them.

Resources