Mark

Get Weekly Brief

get_weekly_brief

Read-onlyIdempotent

The Monday weekly brief members get by email: posts waiting for review (a refresh Mark queued for a live page carries refreshReason, the same reason line the Review tab shows), the posts going out in the 7 days after it is sent (upcoming: approved and scheduled posts, those someone publishes by hand first, each with id, channel, title, scheduledAt and handoff, where a LinkedIn Article reads publish_by_hand; capped at 10, with totalCount and manualCount; the 7 days run from that Monday's 08:00 send time, so a mid-week read still lists posts whose time has passed), the last 7 settled Search Console days against the 7 before with tracked keywords that moved, the priority market's latest AI answer check (named and cited per engine, share of voice, wrong answers flagged that week), and up to 3 suggested next actions. A section with no data is null. weekOf picks the Search days; posts in review, tracked keywords and AI answers are always the current ones. Returns markdown and a fenced JSON block with app links. Does not change anything or send email. Related: get_search_performance, get_ai_visibility, search_posts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_weekly_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`weekOf`	No	The Monday the brief is for, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to this week's Monday in the workspace timezone.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search`	Yes
`weekOf`	Yes
`waiting`	Yes
`upcoming`	Yes
`aiAnswers`	Yes
`nextActions`	Yes
`settingsUrl`	Yes
`businessName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / upcoming
```
Added value: +{}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "aiAnswers",
-  "businessName",
-  "nextActions",
-  "search",
-  "settingsUrl",
-  "waiting",
-  "weekOf"
-]New value: +[
+  "aiAnswers",
+  "businessName",
+  "nextActions",
+  "search",
+  "settingsUrl",
+  "upcoming",
+  "waiting",
+  "weekOf"
+]

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare a safe read, and the description adds detail they cannot: no email is sent, empty sections return null, the schedule list is capped at 10 with totalCount/manualCount, and the 7-day window is anchored to the Monday 08:00 send time so mid-week reads still show past posts. It also explains the refreshReason duplication and handoff values.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is front-loaded and every clause is informative, but the single dense paragraph with nested parentheticals is hard to parse, and with an output schema present much of the section-by-section enumeration is redundant. A short numbered structure would improve scanability.

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?

Given the output schema and safe-read annotations, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs, including return format (markdown plus fenced JSON with app links) and the empty-state behavior. It stops short of stating any permission or plan prerequisites, which is a minor gap.

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 already 100%, yet the description adds real meaning: weekOf narrows only the Search Console comparison days, while review posts, tracked keywords and AI answers always reflect current state. That scoping behavior is not in the 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 opens with a precise statement of what it returns: a five-part Monday brief (posts awaiting review, scheduled posts, Search Console comparison, AI answer check, suggested actions). It names the sibling tools that serve individual sections, so an agent can distinguish this aggregate view from get_search_performance or get_ai_visibility without inspecting schemas.

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 clearly frames when to reach for this tool versus the point tools by listing the specific related alternatives at the end, and it explicitly rules out side effects. It does not spell out an explicit 'call this first/only when...' condition, so the guidance is strong but inferential.

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

All Mark 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?