Skip to main content
Glama

get_editing_codes

Retrieve documentation and protocols for editing texts using Open Strategy Partners methodologies to maintain consistent content standards.

Instructions

Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) editing codes documentation and usage protocol for editing texts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_editing_codes' tool. It is decorated with @mcp.tool() which also serves as the registration. The function reads the content of 'codes-llm.md' file from the script directory and returns it wrapped in a success dict, or an error if the file is missing.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_editing_codes() -> dict:
        """Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) editing codes documentation and usage protocol for editing texts."""
        script_dir = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__))
        try:
            with open(os.path.join(script_dir, 'codes-llm.md'), 'r') as f:
                content = f.read()
                return {
                    "success": True,
                    "data": {
                        "content": content
                    }
                }
        except FileNotFoundError:
            return {
                "success": False,
                "error": "Required file 'codes-llm.md' not found in script directory"
            }
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the content type ('documentation and usage protocol'), but doesn't detail aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this offers basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's intent.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavioral aspects would improve completeness, but it meets the basic requirement for a simple retrieval tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but with no parameters, this is acceptable. It provides a baseline understanding of the tool's function without unnecessary complexity.

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 tool's purpose: to retrieve documentation and usage protocol for OSP editing codes. It specifies the resource ('OSP editing codes documentation and usage protocol') and the action ('Get'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_writing_guide' or 'get_meta_guide', which might also provide documentation. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_writing_guide' or 'get_meta_guide', leaving the agent without context for tool selection. This lack of explicit usage instructions results in minimal guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/open-strategy-partners/osp_marketing_tools'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server