Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

XBOSS

by kr.xdata
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

블로그 본문 자동작성 (선택)

blog_autowrite__content__generate

No credential or login required. 고객이 명시적으로 요청할 때에만 선택한 유료 AI로 한국어 검토용 본문을 생성하고 content_artifact_ref를 반환합니다. 엑스보스 공개 블로그 스타일을 참고합니다. 제공사 로그인, 네이버나 티스토리의 임시저장, 최종 발행은 별도입니다. 반환된 본문 참조를 기존 블로그 초안 작업에 전달하세요. 결과가 불확실하면 기존 Job부터 확인하고 새 키로 자동 재작성하지 마세요. 자동작성 대신 사용 중인 AI에서 직접 작성한 본문을 본문 보관 도구에 넣어도 됩니다. For an authenticated call, generate and save request_idempotency_key before the first request. Reuse it with the same arguments only to recover that request after a lost response; use a new key for a new execution. Without it, calling again remains a new request. This optional key is not available to anonymous taste calls. Keep any provider-specific idempotency_key unchanged; it is a different field. 호출마다 토큰 1소진 요청 처리 시 XBOSS 작업을 생성하고 처리 결과를 저장합니다. 기관 원본의 조회 여부와 별개로 이 호출은 순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다. 기관 데이터 변경은 도구별 실행 내용과 기존 확인 절차를 따릅니다.

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": {
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "blog_autowrite__content__generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo쉼표로 구분한 태그 문자열(선택). 블로그 편집기와 같은 형식입니다.
topicYes자동작성할 글의 주제. 비어 있으면 생성하지 않습니다.
categoryNo글 카테고리(선택). 엑스보스 블로그의 컨텐츠 유형(예: 업무자동화)에 맞춥니다.
request_idempotency_keyNoOptional same-request recovery key for authenticated calls; see the tool description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), that no credential/login is needed, that an XBOSS job is created and the result stored, and that the call is not a pure read. The idempotency section is unusually thorough: when to mint the key, when to reuse vs. re-mint, that anonymous taste calls cannot use it, and that a provider-specific idempotency_key is a different field.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The front-loaded '고객 요청 시에만' constraint and the idempotency block are well placed, but the paragraph is long, mixes Korean and English without section structure, and contains a garbled run-on ('호출마다 토큰 1소진 요청 처리 시 …'). Some trailing sentences read like boilerplate about institutional data ('기관 원본의 조회 여부와 별개로…') that does not belong to a blog-generation tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers what is returned (a content_artifact_ref to pass into the existing draft workflow), the cost, the job/storage side effect, and the idempotency protocol — enough for correct invocation. Missing only secondary details such as expected body length or how the artifact ref is consumed downstream.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for request_idempotency_key (generate and persist before the first authenticated request; reuse only to recover a lost response; new key for a new execution). The remaining params (topic, category, tags) get no added semantics beyond the schema, keeping it below 5.

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?

The description states a specific verb and artifact: generate a Korean-language review draft with a paid AI and return a content_artifact_ref, plus the note that it follows the XBOSS public blog style. It distinguishes itself from manual authoring ('자동작성 대신 사용 중인 AI에서 직접 작성한 본문을 … 넣어도 됩니다') and from staging/publishing ('네이버나 티스토리의 임시저장, 최종 발행은 별도입니다'). It stops short of naming the sibling staging/read tools, so routing still takes some inference.

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?

It gives an explicit gate ('고객이 명시적으로 요청할 때에만'), explicit exclusions (no provider login, no temp-save, no publishing), and a recovery rule ('결과가 불확실하면 기존 Job부터 확인하고 새 키로 자동 재작성하지 마세요'). It also offers the manual alternative of placing a self-written body into the content storage tool.

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

All XBOSS 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