Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Storywright MCP

Storywright MCP

by BurgersJackson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_editor_review

Trigger an editor review on a chapter after the writer's draft, moving it through the guarded writer-editor-third-pass-approve pipeline.

Instructions

Editor pass after writer.

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": {
      "chapter_num": "<chapter_num>"
    },
    "name": "run_editor_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chapter_numYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context—does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, asynchronous, or what side effects occur. Output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (4 words) but does not effectively convey necessary information, making it under-specified rather than concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description lacks essential details about the review process, expected output, and relation to sibling tools, creating potential for misuse.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter (chapter_num) has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its meaning or format, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Editor pass after writer' vaguely indicates the tool performs an editorial review on a chapter after the writer's pass, but lacks a clear action verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'approve_chapter' or 'request_revision'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'after writer' implies a condition but does not explicitly state prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools