SupaBird

Write Like My Creators

write_like_my_creators

Rewrite the user's text into X/Twitter post drafts using ONLY the Quality Post Rulebook (QPR) — the writing patterns from the user's selected creators. This ignores the user's personal style and writes purely in the style of their chosen creator inspirations.

    IMPORTANT: This tool requires the user to have a Quality Post Rulebook (QPR) from selected creators. 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_like_my_creators"
  }
}

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful context — the QPR prerequisite and the error behavior when it's absent — but says nothing about what the drafts look like, whether they're persisted, or how the creator set is resolved.

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 key constraint, then a scannable numbered checklist. The checklist duplicates schema descriptions, which is mild redundancy, but the structure is easy to act on.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description makes clear the return is post drafts and covers the prerequisite, required inputs, and error case. Only the shape of the returned drafts and the social_set resolution are left unstated.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the length enum and the ask-before-calling rule. The description's numbered checklist largely restates those same constraints, adding little semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 ("Rewrite the user's text into X/Twitter post drafts") and pins the source of style to the QPR from selected creators, explicitly noting it ignores personal style — which distinguishes it from write_in_my_style and write_like_creator.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (user must have a QPR, otherwise error) and an explicit collection checklist with an instruction to ask rather than assume defaults. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like write_in_my_style as the fallback when the user wants their own voice, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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?