ContentIn — LinkedIn Ghostwriter

Repurpose an existing post

repurpose_post

Rewrite an existing post from a new angle, in the user's voice. Pass post_id (a ContentIn post id from list_posts) to repurpose one of their own posts — the current text is read from ContentIn, so you do not need to have seen it. Pass original_post instead to repurpose text you already have that is not in ContentIn. Exactly one of the two is required. The result is saved as a new draft; the original is left untouched. If this tool returns needs_input: true with a question, your ONLY job that turn is to relay that question to the user (verbatim, or lightly adapted to the conversation language). Do NOT write, invent, or promise a post, and do NOT call this or any other write tool again until the user answers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`style`	Yes	Writing style. Infer it from the material: results / case studies / client wins = proof, educational / frameworks = authority, viral / trending / broad-resonance = growth.
`post_id`	No	A ContentIn post id (from list_posts). Its current body is read from ContentIn and used as the original.
`new_angle`	Yes	What should change: the new angle, perspective, focus or audience. Be specific about what to keep and what to shift.
`original_post`	No	The full text of a post that is NOT in ContentIn. Ignored when post_id is provided and resolves.
`content_pillar`	No	Name of the content pillar this belongs to, so the draft is tagged correctly.
`user_constraints`	No	Stated user preferences that override defaults for this post.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It clarifies that the tool is not read-only (creates new draft), not destructive (original left untouched), and not idempotent (creates a new draft each time). It also explains the conversational workflow when the tool asks for user input. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

The description is a single paragraph containing several sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence is meaningful and necessary for correct usage. Minor trimming could be possible, but the current length is justified by the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, conditional logic, repurpose workflow, and conversational interaction), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all input scenarios, explains the output (saved as new draft), and provides explicit handling instructions for the needs_input case. Even without an output schema, the agent has enough information to use the tool correctly.

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% with good descriptions for each parameter. The description adds significant value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of post_id and original_post, how post_id reads the current body from ContentIn, and the intended use of the style enum. While the schema already covers basics, the description provides operational context that helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 purpose: 'Rewrite an existing post from a new angle, in the user's voice.' It specifies two distinct input methods (post_id or original_post) and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like write_post_in_my_voice (which creates new posts) and list_posts (which lists existing posts).

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use post_id vs original_post, including the condition that exactly one is required. It also gives a critical instruction for handling the needs_input: true response, stating that the agent must relay the question to the user and not write or call any other tool. This is exceptional clarity.

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

All ContentIn — LinkedIn Ghostwriter tools Inspect

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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capturing user substance, generating ideas from scratch, writing posts from user material, repurposing posts, scheduling, publishing, listing, and analytics. There is no ambiguity or overlap, as even similar actions like publishing and scheduling are differentiated by timing and require separate confirmation flows.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., capture_substance, generate_ideas, write_post_in_my_voice). The verbs are descriptive and the nouns clearly indicate the resource or action, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a LinkedIn ghostwriting assistant. Each tool covers a necessary step in the content lifecycle: capturing input, generating ideas, writing, repurposing, scheduling, publishing, listing, and analytics. The number is neither excessive nor insufficient for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflow of content creation, scheduling, publishing, and analytics. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct post editing (beyond repurposing), no explicit pillar management, and no deletion tool. However, these are edge cases and do not hinder the primary ghostwriting purpose.

Resources

Need Help?