content-engine-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

setup_sourcing

Define sourcing rules so drafts cite [S#] for numbers, percentages, dollar amounts, and dates, and set whether source URLs are required or unsourced anecdotes allowed.

Instructions

Write sourcing rules. Drafts must cite [S#] for numbers, %, $ and dates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "setup_sourcing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	No
`require_urls`	No
`allow_personal_anecdotes_unsourced`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Write sourcing rules" implies mutation, but the description does not say whether existing rules are replaced, what defaults apply, whether authentication is required, or how the boolean flags change draft behavior. The citation sentence describes downstream draft requirements rather than this tool's operational effects.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted wording, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though the second sentence is not clearly connected to the tool's parameters or invocation behavior.

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 mutable configuration tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It states the purpose and one citation policy but leaves invocation behavior, defaults, and parameter meanings unexplained.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are three parameters. The description never mentions notes, require_urls, or allow_personal_anecdotes_unsourced, nor their defaults or interactions. It provides no meaningful parameter semantics to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: "Write sourcing rules." The citation rule adds scope by defining a sourcing policy for drafts. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling setup_* configuration tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as setup_voice, setup_brand, or get_setup. The citation sentence is a policy constraint, not usage guidance. An agent must infer the setup workflow context.

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