Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.realopengroup

get_snippets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find pre-approved RealOpen social-media snippets — copy-ready posts written by RealOpen's marketing team for twitter, linkedin, instagram, email, or general use. Use this when a user asks for ready-to-post content or needs inspiration grounded in approved brand voice. Filter by platform, tone, tag, attached asset, or keyword. Each snippet includes body text, tags, share title (usable as email subject), and a preview of the associated visual asset when one is attached.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoFilter by snippet tags (matches ANY)
toneNoFilter by snippet tone
keywordNoFree-text search on snippet text and title
asset_idNoGet snippets tied to a specific asset by ID
platformNoFilter by target platform

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
snippetsYesUp to 20 matching snippets (random order to avoid stale top-matches)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the return content ('body text, tags, share title, and a preview of the associated visual asset') and the source ('written by RealOpen's marketing team'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: the main purpose, the usage context, and the return/filter summary. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no fluff.

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?

For a read-only search tool with 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, filters, and return content. There are no significant gaps given the annotations and output schema already provide the rest.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters are documented. The description restates the filter dimensions ('platform, tone, tag, attached asset, or keyword') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Find') and resource ('pre-approved RealOpen social-media snippets'), specifying the content type and platforms. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_faq or get_how_it_works by focusing on marketing content.

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 states when to use: 'when a user asks for ready-to-post content or needs inspiration grounded in approved brand voice.' However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternative tools, so it lacks the full exclusions/alternatives that would merit a 5.

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

All mcp-server 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (wallet management, verification, knowledge lookup, marketing, account status), but there is minor overlap between add_wallet and refresh_wallet_verification (both generate verification challenges) and between get_started and get_account_status (both touch on next-step resolution). Descriptions clarify the differences, so confusion is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_wallet, get_wallet_summary, verify_wallet_transfer), with only 'logout' as a single verb, which is still consistent with the imperative style. No mixed conventions or cryptic names.

Tool Count4/5

The server exposes 20 tools, which is on the heavier side of the typical range but appropriate for the broad domain (wallet operations, verification, KYC, knowledge base, marketing assets, referral tracking). Each tool has a distinct role, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle for crypto-to-real-estate transactions: wallet management (add, remove, refresh, verify), identity verification, proof-of-funds generation, knowledge tools (fees, coverage, supported crypto, how-it-works), marketing (snippets, assets, referral), and account navigation (get_started, logout). No obvious gaps that would leave an agent stuck.

Resources