Skip to main content
Glama

Rebbel

by io.rebbel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Re-make post from the guide

remake_post
Destructive

Re-makes one post from the brand guide — the post page's "Re-make from the guide": a fresh concept for THIS post under the brand's current guide (what the product does, what it must never claim, its vocabulary), checked against that guide, landing as a new version with the previous one kept and its images redone. For when the idea itself was wrong — it describes a feature the product doesn't have, or the wrong audience — not just a line or an image; for a targeted edit use ask_for_changes. Pass the user's reason if they gave one. Never approves or publishes: the post comes back in review. Comes back as one honest line, with nothing changed, when the post is one of the user's own verbatim posts or the brand guide lists no capabilities to ground a new concept in. "Remake with your photo": pass photoAssetId (one of the photos the user confirmed) or useOwnerPhoto: true (their best-matching confirmed photo) to put their own photo on the image, or on a carousel's first slide; on their first post this puts the photo on it and keeps the caption. If that photo isn't one they confirmed, or they have none, nothing is re-made and the reply asks for one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postIdYesThe post's id, from list_posts.
reasonNoWhy the current concept was rejected, in the user's own words (e.g. "it describes a feature we don't have", "wrong audience"). Folded into the new concept as critic notes. Optional.
brandIdYesThe brand's id, from list_brands.
verboseNoDefault false: the compact owner view. Pass true only when you need the full stored record (every internal field, ids, provenance) — it's several times larger.
campaignIdYesAn existing campaign's id, from list_campaigns or generate_campaign.
photoAssetIdNoUse exactly this photo from the brand's image library (an id from the photos the owner confirmed). It must be one of this brand's confirmed photos; otherwise nothing is re-made and the reply asks for one.
useOwnerPhotoNoUse the owner's best-matching confirmed photo, however few they have. If the brand has no confirmed photo yet, nothing is re-made and the reply asks for one — never AI art.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / photoAssetId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Use exactly this photo from the brand's image library (an id from the photos the owner confirmed). It must be one of this brand's confirmed photos; otherwise nothing is re-made and the reply asks for one.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / useOwnerPhoto
      Added value: +{
+  "const": true,
+  "description": "Use the owner's best-matching confirmed photo, however few they have. If the brand has no confirmed photo yet, nothing is re-made and the reply asks for one — never AI art.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantially beyond them: the previous version is kept, images are redone, the result returns in review rather than being published, and there are explicit no-op outcomes (own verbatim posts, or a guide with no capabilities). The photo path also discloses what happens when a photo is unconfirmed or absent.

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?

Purpose, exclusion and the photo variant are front-loaded in a logical order, and most sentences carry load-bearing detail. It is dense and runs long, with the photo branch and the no-op caveats somewhat interleaved, but there is little outright waste.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return state ('comes back in review', 'one honest line'), the failure/no-op conditions, the reason-passing requirement, and the media variant. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and set expectations for the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description still adds behavioral meaning the schema lacks: photoAssetId/useOwnerPhoto place the photo on the image or a carousel's first slide, and on the user's first post the photo is applied while the caption is kept.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Re-makes one post from the brand guide') and immediately scopes it as a fresh concept under the brand's current guide, landing as a new version with the previous one kept. It explicitly names the sibling it is not ('for a targeted edit use ask_for_changes'), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('when the idea itself was wrong — it describes a feature the product doesn't have, or the wrong audience — not just a line or an image') and an explicit alternative for the excluded case (ask_for_changes). It also names the caller's obligation to pass the user's reason and the hard boundary that this never approves or publishes.

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