Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PostKing MCP Server

PostKing MCP Server

by bitsandtea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

seo_roadmap_edit

Update SEO roadmap items by adjusting their title, status, or priority.

Instructions

Edit a roadmap item — update its title, status (suggested|in_progress|completed|ignored), or priority.

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": {
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "seo_roadmap_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoNew title for the roadmap item
itemIdYesRoadmap item ID from seo_list_roadmap
statusNoNew status
brandIdNoBrand ID (defaults to active brand)
priorityNoPriority integer (lower = higher priority)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.7

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists updatable fields and the status enum, but does not state that itemId is required, whether this is a partial update, or what happens if the item does not exist.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential scope without waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple update operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but without an output schema or annotations the description does not mention return behavior or confirm that itemId is required (though schema marks it). It is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps.

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%, and each parameter already has descriptive text (e.g., 'New status', 'Priority integer (lower = higher priority)'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating title, status, and priority, and omits brandId entirely.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('a roadmap item'), and lists the updatable fields (title, status, priority), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like seo_roadmap_delete or seo_roadmap_get.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied ('Edit a roadmap item') but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., use seo_roadmap_delete to remove) is given. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool guidance.

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