PR-CY MCP

set_article_content

Полностью заменить содержимое статьи (старые блоки удаляются). Для объёмного материала не передавай весь текст одним вызовом — он может оборваться по длине ответа. Чтобы дописать или нарастить длинную статью по частям, используй modify_article_blocks (insert, до 50 блоков за вызов), а не set_article_content.

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": {
      "article_id": "<article_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "set_article_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Новый массив блоков статьи
`article_id`	Yes	Идентификатор статьи

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Идентификатор статьи
`body`	No	Массив блоков содержимого статьи
`name`	Yes	Название статьи
`extraData`	No	Дополнительные данные статьи
`hasInvites`	No	Есть ли у статьи приглашения к совместному редактированию
`dateCreated`	No	Дата создания статьи в формате ISO 8601
`dateUpdated`	No	Дата последнего обновления статьи в формате ISO 8601

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the destructive replace semantics, the truncation failure mode for large payloads, and the per-call block cap of the alternative. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or whether the article must already exist, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 sentences, zero filler: destructive semantics first, then the large-input caveat, then the alternative. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 destructive write tool with no annotations, the description supplies the essential behavioral risk and the sibling routing, and an output schema covers return values. The one remaining gap is the structure of the block objects in body, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description only implies that body is a block array. It adds no meaning about the block object shape (schema declares a bare object with additionalProperties:true), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Полностью заменить содержимое статьи') with the destructive scope spelled out ('старые блоки удаляются'). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (modify_article_blocks), so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit when-not rule (bulk material, risk of truncation by response length) and names the concrete alternative with its constraint ('modify_article_blocks (insert, до 50 блоков за вызов)'). The condition that selects each tool is unambiguous.

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

All PR-CY MCP 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?