content-engine-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

render_outputs

Renders newsletter HTML and ready-to-post social copy packs from a seed, enforcing fact-check gates for newsletter output unless draft mode is enabled.

Instructions

Render copy packs. Newsletter HTML is blocked on failed fact-check unless draft=true (warnings only). X uses twitter-text and numbered intent links. Always returns text content plus structuredContent.

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": {
      "seed_id": "<seed_id>"
    },
    "name": "render_outputs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft`	No
`title`	No
`seed_id`	Yes
`subject`	No
`channels`	No
`preheader`	No
`intent_path`	No
`extra_hashtags`	No
`subjectAlternatives`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavior: newsletter rendering is blocked on failed fact-check unless draft=true (warnings only), X output uses twitter-text with numbered intent links, and the response always includes text content plus structuredContent. What it omits is whether rendering persists anything, whether it is safe/idempotent, and whether it can fail on missing setup — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the gating rule, the platform quirk, and the return contract each get one sentence. The telegraphic phrasing ("X uses twitter-text") is terse but not wasteful.

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 nine-parameter, unannotated tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers only the draft flag, one platform detail, and the return shape. The bulk of the inputs and the tool's side-effect profile remain undocumented.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across nine parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It explains the semantic effect of draft=true (downgrades blocking to warnings only) and hints that channels drive per-platform behavior, but seed_id, title, subject, preheader, intent_path, extra_hashtags, and subjectAlternatives are left entirely unexplained.

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?

"Render copy packs" names a verb and an object, but "copy packs" is ambiguous — it isn't obvious whether this produces channel-ready HTML/text from a seed-derived draft. It implies output generation distinct from save_draft or send_newsletter, but never states that relationship explicitly, so an agent must infer it.

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?

The gating rule (newsletter HTML blocked on failed fact-check unless draft=true) implies the pre-condition of fact-checking, which is genuinely useful routing context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_draft_kit, get_draft, or send_newsletter, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a seed or approved draft.

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