content-engine-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

apply_theme

Applies a shipped YAML theme to your content config, setting palette, sections, word limits, and banned words so drafts follow a consistent voice and structure.

Instructions

Apply a shipped YAML theme onto config (palette, sections, word limits, banned words).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "apply_theme"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the mutation's blast radius (palette, sections, word limits, banned words), but says nothing about whether existing config values are overwritten, whether the change is reversible, or what happens if the theme name is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the affected config areas in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant, though the brevity leaves operational questions unanswered.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive-ish config mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope of effect but omits prerequisites, overwrite/reversibility semantics, and result reporting. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it safely.

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 coverage is 0% for the single "name" parameter, and the description only indirectly clarifies it as the identifier of a shipped YAML theme. That is a meaningful hint, but it does not document expected format, casing, valid values, or error behavior for a bad name.

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?

States a specific verb ("Apply") and resource ("shipped YAML theme onto config") and enumerates exactly which config areas are touched: palette, sections, word limits, banned words. An agent knows the operation precisely, though it does not mention the obvious sibling list_themes as the way to discover available theme names.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: "shipped" hints that the theme must already exist and be listed elsewhere, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement, and no guidance on what to do before or after (e.g. verify with list_themes, re-render outputs).

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