Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-content-ops

mcp-content-ops

by nitti510x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_content

Create a draft content item by specifying its type and name, enabling safe CMS writes with structured audit trails.

Instructions

Create a content item as a draft.

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": {
      "content_type": "<content_type>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
content_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose side effects. It only states 'create as a draft' without mentioning permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 that no output schema is provided, the description should at least indicate what the tool returns or how it affects state. It only mentions the draft state, omitting important details like whether an ID or object is returned, or any post-creation steps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema provides no descriptions for 'name' or 'content_type', and the description does not explain their meaning or usage. With zero parameter coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without context for these required fields.

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 action (create), the resource (content item), and the state (as a draft), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search, get, update, and publish.

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 use for creating a new content item, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions or exclusions, though the intent is clear from the tool name and description.

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