Skip to main content
Glama

Rebbel

by io.rebbel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Regenerate strategy section

regenerate_strategy_section
Destructive

Regenerates one section of a draft strategy — channelMix (where to post), contentPillars, cadence (how often), paidOrganicSplit, calendarSkeleton (the week-by-week calendar), expectations (typical ranges), or audit — optionally steered by feedback. A strategy in the newer plan format (strategyVersion 2 in get_strategy's verbose record) also has funnelPlan, channelPlan, campaignCalendar, pillarPlan and budget; there the classic names regenerate the part they come from, and expectations come from published sources, so feedback does not move them. In channelPlan (or cadence), feedback that states a number, like "X 3 to 5 a week", sets that channel's posts per week; other feedback there changes nothing and the reply says so.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandIdYesThe brand's id, from list_brands.
sectionYesWhich section to regenerate. Only this section changes — the rest of the strategy is untouched.
feedbackNoSteer the regeneration with specific feedback on what to change about this section.
strategyIdYesThe strategy's id, from get_strategy.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / section / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "channelMix",
-  "contentPillars",
-  "cadence",
-  "paidOrganicSplit",
-  "calendarSkeleton",
-  "expectations",
-  "audit",
-  "rationale"
-]New value: +[
+  "channelMix",
+  "contentPillars",
+  "cadence",
+  "paidOrganicSplit",
+  "calendarSkeleton",
+  "expectations",
+  "audit",
+  "rationale",
+  "funnelPlan",
+  "channelPlan",
+  "campaignCalendar",
+  "pillarPlan",
+  "budget"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so irreversibility is signposted structurally; the description adds the scoping guarantee that only the named section changes and details version-dependent remapping of classic section names in strategyVersion 2. It does not describe the returned reply payload, but that is a minor gap given the rich behavioral context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: section list first, then the version-format caveat, then the feedback-parsing rule. Every clause carries information, though the middle sentence is long and could be split for readability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, version-dependent behavior, and feedback semantics well enough to call it correctly. The one omission is what the response contains beyond 'the reply says so' when feedback has no effect.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it glosses each section value, explains that classic names map onto their plan-format counterparts, and specifies exactly how numeric feedback is parsed for channelPlan/cadence ('X 3 to 5 a week' sets posts per week).

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?

Specific verb (regenerates) plus clearly bounded resource (one section of a draft strategy), with the enum members enumerated and glossed in plain language. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling regenerate_brand_guide_section, which targets a different artifact.

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 explains how to steer regeneration with feedback and when feedback is effective versus ignored ('expectations come from published sources, so feedback does not move them'). It stops short of stating prerequisites or alternatives, but the conditional guidance is concrete and actionable.

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

All Rebbel 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