Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PostKing MCP Server

PostKing MCP Server

by bitsandtea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

rewrite_with_voice

Adjust text to match a chosen voice profile, ensuring consistent brand tone across platforms.

Instructions

Rewrite text using a specific voice profile.

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": {
      "profileId": "<profileId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "rewrite_with_voice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to rewrite
brandIdNoBrand ID (uses active brand if omitted)
platformNoPlatform context: x | linkedin | instagram | threads | facebook
profileIdYesVoice profile ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.7

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation 'Rewrite text' and the voice profile requirement, but does not mention authentication, reversibility, rate limits, or return 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?

A single sentence with zero filler; it is front-loaded and communicates the core action. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary repetition.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke correctly with confidence. Missing are the return value, the role of optional brandId/platform, default behavior, and how this tool differs from rewrite_text/humanize_text.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond restating 'voice profile' and 'text'; it does not clarify defaults like active brand for brandId or platform-specific behavior.

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 uses a specific verb + resource: 'Rewrite text using a specific voice profile.' It clearly states the tool's function and the distinguishing voice-profile aspect, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling rewrite_text/humanize_text.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rewrite_text, humanize_text, or generate_text. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints for selection.

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