OSP Marketing Tools MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: editing codes, meta guide, SEO guide, value map positioning, writing guide, and health check. The descriptions specify unique domains (e.g., semantic editing marks vs. web content optimization), making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefix for five tools and a descriptive 'health_check' for the sixth. The naming is uniform and predictable, using snake_case throughout without deviations.
Tool Count4/5
Six tools are reasonable for a marketing-focused server, covering key areas like SEO, content creation, and positioning. It's slightly thin but well-scoped; each tool earns its place without redundancy or obvious gaps in the core domain.
Completeness3/5
The tools provide comprehensive guides for content creation, SEO, and positioning, but they are all 'get' operations with no create/update/delete actions. This limits agent workflows to retrieval only, leaving notable gaps for interactive or generative tasks in the marketing domain.
Average 3.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the system does (generates optimized content elements) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single run-on sentence that packs multiple concepts (system name, purpose, elements generated, and analysis features). While it conveys key information, it could be more structured and front-loaded for clarity. It's not overly verbose but could be tightened for better readability.
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 implied by generating optimized content with search intent analysis, and with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a guide, template, or generated text), how to interpret results, or any operational constraints, leaving gaps for effective agent use.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. However, it could have mentioned if any implicit inputs or context are required, but this is minor, warranting a high score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves a specific system (OSP Web Content Meta Information Generation System) for creating optimized web content elements, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_on_page_seo_guide' or 'get_writing_guide' that might cover overlapping SEO/content optimization areas, making it somewhat vague about its unique scope.
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 implies usage for generating article titles, meta titles, descriptions, and slugs with keyword placement and search intent analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_on_page_seo_guide' or 'get_writing_guide'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 describes what the tool returns (documentation and usage protocol) but doesn't cover important aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and the nature of the content. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from content characteristics.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether it's structured data, a document, or a reference), which would be helpful since there's no output schema. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete.
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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is efficient and correct for this case.
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: retrieving OSP editing codes documentation and usage protocol for editing texts. It specifies the resource (OSP editing codes) and the action (get), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_writing_guide' or 'get_meta_guide' beyond mentioning the specific content type.
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 mentions the tool's content focus (semantic editing marks for content review with teaching/learning focus) but doesn't indicate when to choose it over sibling tools like 'get_writing_guide' or 'get_on_page_seo_guide', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention any other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It front-loads the core function ('Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) On-Page SEO Optimization Guide') and then provides useful detail about what the guide covers. Every part of the sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It tells what resource is retrieved and what topics it covers, but doesn't describe the return format, potential errors, or any operational constraints. Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters), the description meets minimum viable standards but could be more complete regarding behavioral expectations.
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 zero parameters (input schema is empty object), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. With 100% schema description coverage and zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
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: 'Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) On-Page SEO Optimization Guide' with specific details about what the guide covers (meta content, keyword research, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource (OSP guide). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_meta_guide' or 'get_writing_guide' beyond mentioning SEO focus.
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 when this SEO guide would be preferred over the 'get_meta_guide' or 'get_writing_guide' siblings, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual triggers for its use. The description simply states what the tool provides without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured vs. unstructured data, or handles errors. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the tool's purpose and key components without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by starting with the core action ('Get the OSP Product Communications Value Map Generation System').
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 (retrieving a structured system with multiple components), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies what content is included but lacks details on return format, data structure, or behavioral traits, which are needed for full contextual understanding.
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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, as it efficiently avoids unnecessary detail while matching the schema's completeness.
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: retrieving a specific system (OSP Product Communications Value Map Generation System) with detailed content components (taglines, position statements, personas, value cases, feature categorization). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_meta_guide' or 'get_writing_guide' beyond naming the specific system.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_meta_guide' or 'get_writing_guide' to help the agent choose between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 describes what the tool returns ('writing guide and usage protocol'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second sentence adds useful context about the guide's content. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 (simple retrieval with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but does not provide enough context for full understanding, such as response format or behavioral details. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it does not, leaving some gaps.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). With no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it meets expectations without extra effort.
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: 'Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) writing guide and usage protocol for creating high-quality technical content.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('writing guide and usage protocol'), and mentions the content's scope ('systematic principles for narrative structure, flow, style, and technical accuracy'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., get_editing_codes, get_meta_guide), which would be needed for a score of 5.
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 its siblings. It mentions the guide's purpose ('for creating high-quality technical content'), but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to choose this over get_editing_codes or get_meta_guide, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking server status and resource accessibility, but doesn't specify what constitutes 'running' or 'resources', whether this is a lightweight ping or intensive diagnostic, what authentication might be needed, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple health check tool and front-loads the essential information ('Check if the server is running').
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does. However, it lacks details about behavioral aspects (what 'check' entails, response format, error conditions) that would be helpful for an agent to understand the tool's operation fully, especially with no annotations to supplement.
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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described as having no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which meets expectations for this dimension. A perfect score would require the description to explicitly note the lack of parameters, but it's reasonable to assume this from context.
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 with specific verbs ('check if...is running and can access') and resources ('server', 'its resources'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this health check tool from its siblings (all content/guide retrieval tools), which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.
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 or in what context it should be invoked. There are no prerequisites mentioned, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage framework beyond the basic purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![osp-marketing-tools-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/x51xxx/osp-marketing-tools-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/x51xxx/osp-marketing-tools-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![osp-marketing-tools-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/x51xxx/osp-marketing-tools-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/x51xxx/osp-marketing-tools-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/x51xxx/osp-marketing-tools-mcp'

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