PostKing MCP Server

seo_regenerate_brief

Regenerate an unusable SEO brief by re-running full generation for a single brief, and track progress via the returned operation ID.

Instructions

Re-runs L3 brief generation for a single brief (scoped to its cluster). Typically takes ~2–5 min. Async — returns {operationId, status}. Poll get_job with the operationId until state is completed (or failed/partially_failed/cancelled on error), then re-fetch with seo_get_brief to see the refreshed briefData. Use when the existing brief's outline is unusable and a structured seo_edit_brief won't recover it.

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": {
      "briefId": "<briefId>"
    },
    "name": "seo_regenerate_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brandId`	No	Brand ID (defaults to active brand)
`briefId`	Yes	Brief ID from seo_list_briefs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.7Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses async behavior, expected duration (2–5 min), return format, polling mechanism, error states, and the need to refetch with seo_get_brief. This is modelable 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?

Three dense sentences: purpose, async flow, and usage guidance. No wasted words; each sentence serves a distinct function. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value and next steps for an async operation. It also covers when to use and how to handle completion/errors, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about cluster scoping but no additional parameter syntax or format details, so it remains at baseline.

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 description clearly states the tool 'Re-runs L3 brief generation for a single brief (scoped to its cluster)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like seo_edit_brief and seo_get_brief by focusing on regeneration of an existing brief.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'Use when the existing brief's outline is unusable and a structured seo_edit_brief won't recover it.' It also names an alternative (seo_edit_brief) and details the async workflow with polling instructions.

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

Deploy Server