Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

craft-content-mcp

by io.github.shashwatgtm
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Thought Leadership Series

thought_leadership_series
Read-only

Helps you decide what to publish to make your point of view known, from your topic, your take and the reader you write for. Optional proof points, author background, number of articles and article style shape it. Returns, for each article, a headline and a short first draft with the objection it answers, your proof and a way to test the idea, a promotional post for each, a publishing order and sector notes. Your words are quoted as written and no result, customer or figure is invented. Ask whether written customer approval covers the exact material and intended use.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesThe topic you want to build authority on
your_takeYesYour own view on this topic: what you believe that others do not, or your contrarian view
your_sectorNoOptional: your company's own industry (not your customers'). When given, it decides the sector notes; when left out, the tool reads it from your words and stays neutral if they are unclear.
article_typeNoThe style of the articles
num_articlesNoHow many articles to outline, a whole number from 1 to 5. If left out, the series has three articles
proof_pointsNoOptional: evidence supporting your take: personal stories, client examples, data or stats, one per line, per semicolon or comma-separated. If not provided, proof points to gather are suggested
target_readerYesWho should read this, named specifically (for example 'Heads of IT at companies with many branches' rather than 'managers')
author_backgroundNoOptional: your role and why you are credible (for example 'a long career in enterprise sales')
publication_approvalNoOptional confirmed written approval for this exact customer name, figures, quote and intended use. Ask before publication. A draft cannot grant customer permission.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / publication_approval
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional confirmed written approval for this exact customer name, figures, quote and intended use. Ask before publication. A draft cannot grant customer permission.",
+  "enum": [
+    "approved",
+    "not_approved",
+    "unknown"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / article_type / description
      Previous value: -"Style of articles"New value: +"The style of the articles"
    • changedInput schema / properties / author_background / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: Your role and why you're credible (e.g., '15 years in enterprise sales')"New value: +"Optional: your role and why you are credible (for example 'a long career in enterprise sales')"
    • changedInput schema / properties / num_articles / description
      Previous value: -"Number of articles to generate (1-5)"New value: +"How many articles to outline, a whole number from 1 to 5. If left out, the series has three articles"
    • changedInput schema / properties / num_articles / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • changedInput schema / properties / proof_points / description
      Previous value: -"OPTIONAL: Evidence supporting your take: personal stories, client examples, data/stats (comma-separated). If not provided, we'll suggest proof points to gather"New value: +"Optional: evidence supporting your take: personal stories, client examples, data or stats, one per line, per semicolon or comma-separated. If not provided, proof points to gather are suggested"
    • changedInput schema / properties / target_reader / description
      Previous value: -"Who should read this? Be specific (e.g., 'B2B SaaS founders struggling with churn' not just 'marketers')"New value: +"Who should read this, named specifically (for example 'Heads of IT at companies with many branches' rather than 'managers')"
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"The topic you want to establish authority on"New value: +"The topic you want to build authority on"
    • addedInput schema / properties / your_sector
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: your company's own industry (not your customers'). When given, it decides the sector notes; when left out, the tool reads it from your words and stays neutral if they are unclear.",
+  "enum": [
+    "logistics_tech",
+    "fintech",
+    "saas",
+    "vertical_saas",
+    "ai_native",
+    "ites",
+    "telecom",
+    "software",
+    "cybersecurity",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / your_take / description
      Previous value: -"Your unique perspective or opinion on this topic. What do you believe that others don't? What's your contrarian view?"New value: +"Your own view on this topic: what you believe that others do not, or your contrarian view"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, the description discloses the full return shape (headline, first draft, objection, proof, test, promo post, publishing order, sector notes), a non-fabrication guarantee ('no result, customer or figure is invented'), and a real constraint about customer approval scope. That is unusually rich behavioral context that annotations alone would never convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then outputs, then guarantees, with no filler sentences. Slightly dense and one clause ('Ask whether written customer approval...') reads as an instruction packed into the description, but overall it earns its length.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly what each article returns. For a 9-parameter generation tool the only meaningful gap is the absence of explicit sibling differentiation, which is a routing concern rather than a calling concern.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates them ('optional proof points, author background, number of articles and article style'). It adds little syntax or default semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: it decides what to publish to make a point of view known, then produces article series. An agent can tell this apart from case_study_generator or testimonial_capture by the 'build authority through articles' framing. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through 'from your topic, your take and the reader you write for' and the publishing-context framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the seven content siblings. The approval instruction is a workflow step, not tool-selection guidance.

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

All craft-content-mcp toolsInspect
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