SupaBird

Write In My Style

write_in_my_style

Rewrite the user's text into X/Twitter post drafts using ONLY the user's personal writing style (PSR — Personal Style Rulebook). This tool captures the user's unique tone and voice.

    IMPORTANT: This tool requires the user to have a Personal Style Rulebook. If they don't have one, the tool will return an error.

    Before calling this tool, make sure you have collected ALL of the following from the user:
    1. The text/topic to rewrite
    2. How many drafts (1–5)
    3. Post length (short / average / long / very_detailed)
    4. Standard or punchy formatting

    If ANY of these are missing from the user's message, ASK the user before calling this tool. Do NOT assume defaults.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "write_in_my_style"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	The text, topic, or post content to rewrite as X/Twitter post drafts.
`length`	No	Post length. If the user didn't specify, ASK them before calling this tool. Options: - short: 80–160 chars, up to 3 lines - average: up to 240 chars, 3–5 lines - long: aim for 280 chars max (free tier max) - very_detailed: above 280 chars, detailed posts
`punchy`	No	If true, use punchy formatting with short, sharp lines. If false, use standard formatting with longer sentences. If the user didn't specify, ASK them whether they want standard format or punchy (with short lines).
`language`	No	Output language for drafts (e.g. English, French, Spanish) or "auto" to match the language of the input text. If omitted, uses the user's account language preference when set.
`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.
`number_of_drafts`	No	How many draft posts to generate (1–5). If the user didn't specify, ASK them before calling this tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent generator, and the description adds useful behavior: hard failure without a PSR and a no-defaults policy that forces clarifying questions. It does not describe what the output drafts look like, how many variants are returned, or what happens with the social_set parameter when the user has multiple brands.

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 core action and the critical PSR prerequisite, and the numbered checklist is scannable. Some redundancy: the 'ask if unspecified' instruction is stated in the description and repeated verbatim inside the schema descriptions for length, punchy, and number_of_drafts.

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 six-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, missing-input handling, and all behavioral constraints well. Gaps are minor: what the drafts look like on return and how the tool behaves when the user belongs to multiple brands are left implicit.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the length enum values and the punchy formatting guidance. The description echoes four of the six parameters (text, draft count, length, formatting) but adds no detail beyond the schema and omits language and social_set entirely; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource: rewrites the user's text into X/Twitter post drafts constrained by the Personal Style Rulebook (PSR). This meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like write_like_creator or write_in_supabird_style by naming the style source, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Strong preconditions: requires a PSR (error otherwise) and instructs the agent to collect four specific inputs and ask rather than assume defaults. It stops short of naming alternative tools for cases where the user lacks a rulebook or wants a different style source, so it isn't a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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?