Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
content-engine-mcp

content-engine-mcp

by DevMandalia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

save_draft

Save a new versioned draft for a specific channel without overwriting previous versions. Preserves draft history so you can track changes and compare iterations over time.

Instructions

Save a new versioned draft for a channel. Never overwrites previous versions.

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>",
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "save_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
channelYes
seed_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: each save creates a new version and never overwrites prior ones. However, it says nothing about permissions, what happens to the referenced seed, whether a draft identifier is returned, or any rate/validation behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most important non-obvious constraint. There is no filler.

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?

The append-only versioning contract is covered, which is the most valuable thing for an agent to know, but with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the meaning of 'seed_id' and 'body' and what the call returns are left unresolved.

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%, so the description must explain the three required parameters and does not. Only 'channel' is echoed ('for a channel'), while 'seed_id' and 'body' remain entirely undefined in both the schema and the description.

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 ('Save') and resource ('a new versioned draft for a channel'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like get_draft or approve_draft. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

The description gives no explicit signal about when to use this versus adjacent tools such as mark_draft_ready, request_revision, or list_drafts. The only contextual cue is the phrase 'for a channel', which implies creating rather than retrieving, and no exclusions are stated.

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