pressadvantage-mcp

revise_release

Update a press release with revised content by providing the release ID and optional new title/body.

Instructions

Submit revised content for a release that needs content revision

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "revise_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Release ID
`body`	No	Updated HTML body
`title`	No	Updated title

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Submit revised content' without explaining whether the revision overwrites existing content, whether the release must be in a specific state, or any side effects. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the primary action. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler language.

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?

Given the complexity of the release lifecycle and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify when this tool should be invoked relative to sibling tools, what the response looks like, or what state the release must be in. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for each parameter (id, body, title). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Submit revised content') and the target resource ('a release'), and includes the specific context of content revision. It distinguishes this tool from other release lifecycle actions like approval or finalization, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool ('a release that needs content revision'), but provides no explicit comparison to sibling tools such as approve_release or finalize_draft_release. It lacks clear guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist.

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