prompteye-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Order a content brief for an article

create_content_brief

Order a content brief with a title and H2/H3 outline for an article targeting one prompt, so you can close AI visibility gaps where assistants rarely name your brand.

Instructions

Starts content generation for the active project: orders a brief — a title and an H2/H3 outline — for an article that targets one prompt. Call this when the user wants PromptEye to generate content, write an article, or close a visibility gap on a prompt where the brand is rarely or never named.

PromptEye generates content as well as measuring visibility, and the two make one loop: track the prompts and how often the assistants name the brand on them, generate an article that targets a prompt where the brand is weak, publish it, then measure whether that prompt's visibility and citations move. Generation starts from a content brief: PromptEye fans the target prompt out into the phrases people ask around it, keeps the ones that belong in this article, sets aside the ones that deserve an article of their own, and writes a title and an H2/H3 outline from them. create_content_brief orders one and get_content_brief reads it. The article itself is written from the brief in the PromptEye app, under Content (https://app.prompteye.com/content), from the brand description, the knowledge documents picked for it and the chosen writing style; saving the live URL, requesting indexing and following citations happen there too, and publishing the page is done on the user's own site. A generated article is a draft to review, and neither it nor its indexing guarantees that an assistant will cite it. Guides: https://app.prompteye.com/help/content/ and https://app.prompteye.com/help/content/article-workflow/.

Pass promptId when the article targets a prompt the project already tracks, so the brief is linked to it and that prompt's visibility is what measures the article; a prompt that is not tracked can still get a brief, but nothing will measure its impact. Every call orders a new brief, so asking twice for the same prompt makes two. The brief comes back processing; read it with get_content_brief a little later.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prompt`	Yes	The question the article should answer, phrased the way someone would put it to an assistant. For a tracked prompt, its text as list_prompts reports it.
`promptId`	No	Id of the tracked prompt the article targets, as list_prompts reports it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`error`	Yes	Why generation failed. null unless status is error.
`title`	Yes	Generated article title. null until status is ready.
`prompt`	Yes
`status`	Yes	processing until generated, then ready (title and outline filled in) or error.
`outline`	Yes	The H2/H3 structure of the article. null until ready.
`readyAt`	Yes	When it finished, ISO 8601 in UTC. null = not finished yet.
`projectId`	Yes
`trackerId`	Yes	The tracked prompt the brief is linked to. null = requested standalone.
`fanoutError`	Yes	Set when the fan-out failed but the brief completed with the phrases it had. null otherwise.
`requestedAt`	Yes	When the brief was requested, ISO 8601 in UTC.
`fanoutSource`	Yes	Which fan-out engine produced the phrases. null until ready.
`originalTitle`	Yes	Title of the existing article being optimized. null = no existing article, or not ready yet.
`fanoutVariants`	Yes	Every phrase the fan-out found. null until ready.
`separateArticles`	Yes	Phrases that deserve an article of their own. null until ready.
`phrasesForArticle`	Yes	Phrases that belong in this article and built the outline. null until ready.
`titleChangeAnnotation`	Yes	Why the title changed. null = kept, no existing article, or not ready yet.
`sourceTextMatchPercentage`	Yes	How much of the phrase coverage the existing article already had, in whole percent 0-100. null = no existing article, or not ready yet.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.22Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world), and the description reinforces and extends it: 'Every call orders a new brief, so asking twice for the same prompt makes two,' the async status ('comes back processing'), and the important caveat that a generated article is a draft and does not guarantee citation. It also discloses what happens outside the tool (writing/publishing occurs in the PromptEye app and the user's own site).

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 core action, triggers, and side effects are front-loaded in the first paragraph, and the non-idempotency warning is placed at the end. It is longer than strictly necessary — the visibility-loop narrative and the app/publishing paragraph could be trimmed — but every sentence carries usable information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: prerequisites (active project), trigger conditions, the promptId tradeoff, the async processing state, the follow-up read tool, and where the remaining workflow happens.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: promptId links the brief so that prompt's visibility is what measures the article, whereas an untracked prompt still gets a brief but 'nothing will measure its impact.' It also frames prompt as the question phrased to an assistant, reinforcing the schema's wording.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and artifact ('orders a brief — a title and an H2/H3 outline — for an article that targets one prompt') and explicitly sets up the read/write pairing with get_content_brief. An agent can distinguish this from get_content_brief without inspecting either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names concrete trigger conditions ('when the user wants PromptEye to generate content, write an article, or close a visibility gap'), names the companion tool (get_content_brief), and explains the follow-up sequencing of the visibility loop. It also gives explicit guidance on when to pass promptId versus leaving it out.

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

Deploy Server