SupaBird

generate_ideas_from_posts

This tool generates new X/Twitter post ideas using a provided array of posts as inspiration instead of database posts. It starts a background job and returns a job_id immediately — it does NOT return posts directly. After calling this you MUST call check_ideas_status with the returned job_id and keep polling until status is 'completed' or 'failed'. Tell the user generation is in progress while you wait.

Required information to collect:
1. **Writing style** — exactly one of: "myStyle" (personal tone) or "creators" (chosen creator's style). Do NOT offer remix.
2. **Posts**: An array of strings containing the posts the user wants to use as inspiration.
3. **Number of posts**: Number of posts to generate.
4. **User instructions**:  Free-form instructions to guide generation. Can be used to describe specific length, tone, topics to focus on, etc.

Only call this tool once you have all required answers from the user.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "writingStyle": "<writingStyle>",
      "posts": "<posts>",
      "number_of_posts": "<number_of_posts>",
      "user_instructions": "<user_instructions>"
    },
    "name": "generate_ideas_from_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`posts`	Yes	Array of strings containing the posts to use as inspiration for generating new ideas.
`social_set`	No	The social set (brand) this is for: its name, id or one of its handles. Omit when the user has one set.
`writingStyle`	Yes	Writing style. 'myStyle' = the user's personal tone. 'creators' = a chosen creator's style. Do not use remix.
`number_of_posts`	Yes	Number of posts to generate (5-20)
`user_instructions`	Yes	Free-form instructions to guide the AI generation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say this is a non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive write; the description adds the critical behavior that it is asynchronous — it returns a job_id immediately and does NOT return posts directly. That plus the mandatory polling loop is exactly the context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 the most important fact (async job, no posts returned) and the numbered required-input list is easy to scan. Slightly repetitive in restating the writingStyle enum values that the schema already defines, and the closing line duplicates the 'collect required info' instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining what comes back (a job_id) and what the agent must do next (poll). For a multi-required-parameter async generation tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real guidance beyond it: it enumerates the four required inputs, clarifies that user_instructions can carry length/tone/topic constraints, and adds an exclusion ('Do NOT offer remix') not present in the schema. The optional social_set parameter is not mentioned at all, which is the only gap.

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 ('generates new X/Twitter post ideas') and immediately scopes the input source ('using a provided array of posts as inspiration instead of database posts'), which implicitly separates it from generate_ideas. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the follow-up: 'you MUST call check_ideas_status with the returned job_id and keep polling until status is completed or failed', plus 'Tell the user generation is in progress while you wait'. It also gates invocation ('Only call this tool once you have all required answers from the user') and steers input source choice away from the database-post variant.

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

All SupaBird tools Inspect

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

Need Help?