Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SupaBird

by io.supabird.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Write In SupaBird Style

write_in_supabird_style

Rewrites the user's text or topic into X post drafts using the Personal Style Rulebook and Quality Post Rulebook stored on their SupaBird account, when those rulebooks exist. Saves the drafts in the account. Does not publish them.

Use when the user wants drafts that mix their own voice with their saved creator writing patterns. For personal voice only, use write_in_my_style. For creator patterns only, use write_like_my_creators.

Optional inputs default if omitted: number_of_drafts=2, length=average, punchy=false. language uses the account preference, or the input language if unset.

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_supabird_style"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe text, topic, or post content to rewrite as X/Twitter post drafts.
lengthNoPost 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
punchyNoIf 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).
languageNoOutput 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_setNoThe social set (brand) this is for: its name, id or one of its handles. Omit when the user has one set.
number_of_draftsNoHow 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, and the description adds the crucial context that drafts are persisted but never published, plus the rulebook prerequisite. It does not spell out that repeated calls will accumulate new drafts rather than overwrite, which matters for a non-idempotent tool, so it falls short of the top mark.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight paragraphs: what it does and its side effects first, then routing to sibling tools, then defaults. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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 six-parameter draft-generation tool with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, persistence behavior, non-publication, sibling routing, and defaults. Remaining gaps such as return payload shape are minor since the agent's decision is already fully determined.

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 already 100%, yet the description still adds value by stating the actual defaults for number_of_drafts=2, length=average, punchy=false and the language fallback chain, none of which the schema declares as defaults. It does not explain how social_set is resolved when the user has multiple sets.

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 and resource: rewrites input into X post drafts using two named rulebooks, saves them to the account, and explicitly does not publish. That last clause alone lets an agent distinguish it from any publish/post tool, and the rulebook sourcing makes it distinct from the plain style siblings.

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 ('mix their own voice with saved creator writing patterns') and names both alternatives with the condition that selects each: write_in_my_style for personal voice only, write_like_my_creators for creator patterns only. It also states the prerequisite that the rulebooks must exist on the account.

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

All SupaBird 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