briefing-mcp

render_briefing

Rank your feeds against a persona and render a ready-to-read briefing page, returning structured JSON and page URLs in one editor run.

Instructions

Rank and render a briefing from your own feeds and persona (one editor run; needs a Reader key with render credits, or use x402 on the remote endpoint). Returns JSON and page URLs.

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": {
      "feeds": "<feeds>",
      "persona": "<persona>"
    },
    "name": "render_briefing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feeds`	Yes
`persona`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the billing model ('needs a Reader key with render credits, or use x402 on the remote endpoint') and that it's 'one editor run', which is meaningful auth/cost context. However, it omits rate limits, reversibility, or side-effect details beyond that.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The credit/auth aside is compactly parenthesized. No wasted words.

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?

Covers the core action, inputs, output format, and auth/cost model, but with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, more detail on input constraints and return shape would help. It's adequate but not thorough for a 2-required-param generation tool with usage costs.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'feeds' and 'persona' as inputs but adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema (no constraints like the 30-feed max or 2000-char persona limit, no expected formats).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rank and render a briefing') and clarifies the source ('from your own feeds and persona'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_briefing/list_briefings by being the generation step, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from get_briefing, list_briefings, or get_summary. The parenthetical hints at cost/credit requirements but doesn't route the agent between alternatives.

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

Deploy Server