Skip to main content
Glama

get_writing_guide

Access the Open Strategy Partners writing guide and editing protocols to improve technical content and product positioning using established methodologies.

Instructions

Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) writing guide and usage protocol for editing texts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_writing_guide' tool. It reads the OSP writing guide from 'guide-llm.md' and returns it, with error handling for missing file.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_writing_guide() -> dict:
        """Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) writing guide and usage protocol for editing texts."""
        script_dir = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__))
        try:
            with open(os.path.join(script_dir, 'guide-llm.md'), 'r') as f:
                content = f.read()
                return {
                    "success": True,
                    "data": {
                        "content": content
                    }
                }
        except FileNotFoundError:
            return {
                "success": False,
                "error": "Required file 'writing-llm.md' not found in script directory"
            }   
  • Registers the get_writing_guide function as an MCP tool using the FastMCP decorator.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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 states the tool retrieves a guide and protocol, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what format the output is in, or if the data is static or dynamic. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Get') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, with zero waste.

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 complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, behavioral traits, or differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what to expect from the tool, 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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline score of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Open Strategy Partners writing guide and usage protocol for editing texts'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_editing_codes' or 'get_meta_guide', which might also provide guidance-related content. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 what makes this writing guide unique compared to other guides available (e.g., 'get_meta_guide' or 'get_on_page_seo_guide'), nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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