Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Medium Blog MCP Server

Medium Blog MCP Server

by Navneet1710
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Regenerate Section

regenerate_section

Regenerates a specified blog post section using user feedback to improve content.

Instructions

Regenerate specific section with user feedback

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "section_name": "<section_name>",
      "feedback": "<feedback>"
    },
    "name": "regenerate_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feedbackYesUser feedback for regeneration
session_idYesActive session ID
section_nameYesName of section to regenerate

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey side effects. It implies modification (regenerate) but does not state whether it overwrites the section, saves automatically, or is reversible. No mention of impact on the overall draft or dependency on prior steps.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is perfectly concise for the simple action it describes.

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?

The tool appears to be part of a larger content-generation workflow (siblings include outline, draft, approval, export). The description does not situate it in that flow, nor does it mention expected output or relation to other tools. Missing output schema details also reduce completeness.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. Descriptions are minimal but adequate: 'Name of section to regenerate' and 'User feedback for regeneration' convey the needed meaning, though they lack format or examples. No extra semantic enrichment beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (regenerate) and the resource (specific section) and mentions user feedback as the driver. It is distinguishable from siblings like generate_full_content or save_draft, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus siblings, preconditions (e.g., existing draft, approved outline), or workflow context. The description is purely declarative with no conditional usage hints.

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