AestheticsPro by Cotlet

Create staff announcement in AestheticsPro

aestheticspro_create_staff_announcement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create staff announcement in the user's own AestheticsPro account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in AestheticsPro step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AestheticsPro Cloud Browser. AestheticsPro's official API: AestheticsPro offers "Custom API solutions" only as custom work on its $350 a month Enterprise plan, arranged with AestheticsPro, and publishes no public API documentation or self-serve API key page (checked 11 Nov 2026).

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": "aestheticspro_create_staff_announcement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world) already tell the agent nothing is mutated, and the description is consistent with that by saying it 'opens nothing by itself.' It adds useful return-shape context (screens, buttons, fields) and the API limitation, but says nothing about the announcement's content source or whether guidance can fail/vary by plan tier.

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?

The operational guidance is front-loaded and tight, but the closing paragraph on Enterprise pricing ($350/month) and 'checked 11 Nov 2026' is tangential to invocation and inflates the definition. The core two-sentence instruction is efficient; the API justification could be trimmed to a clause.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool with clear annotations, this covers purpose, the read-only nature, and the required follow-up step with the browser tools. The remaining gap is how the agent supplies the announcement content and what happens if the browser handoff fails.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not, however, explain where the announcement text/schedule comes from given the absence of any input fields, which is the one semantic question an agent would have.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create staff announcement) and immediately clarifies the twist: it returns step-by-step AestheticsPro instructions rather than performing the action. That delegation model distinguishes it from siblings like aestheticspro_create_staff_calendar, though the word 'create' in the name still slightly oversells what happens.

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 frames the workflow: call this first to get screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools. It also explains why the browser route is needed (no public AestheticsPro API). It stops short of naming which sibling announcement/scheduling tool to prefer in overlapping cases.

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

All AestheticsPro by Cotlet 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?