Skip to main content
Glama
x51xxx

OSP Marketing Tools MCP Server

by x51xxx

get_editing_codes

Access standardized semantic editing marks for content review with a teaching focus, enabling structured feedback on texts using Open Strategy Partners' documentation and protocols.

Instructions

Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) editing codes documentation and usage protocol for editing texts. These semantic editing marks provide a standardized framework for content review with a teaching/learning focus.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic of the 'get_editing_codes' tool. It asynchronously reads the 'codes-llm.md' markdown file using the ContentReader utility and returns the content wrapped in a standardized MCP response format, or an error response if reading fails.
    async (_extra) => {
      try {
        const content = await contentReader.readMarkdownFile('codes-llm.md');
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              success: true,
              data: { content }
            })
          }]
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              success: false,
              error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
            })
          }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • The registration of the 'get_editing_codes' tool within the registerTools function, specifying the tool name, description, and handler function passed to McpServer.tool().
    server.tool(
      "get_editing_codes", 
      "Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) editing codes documentation and usage protocol for editing texts. These semantic editing marks provide a standardized framework for content review with a teaching/learning focus.",
      async (_extra) => {
        try {
          const content = await contentReader.readMarkdownFile('codes-llm.md');
          return {
            content: [{
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify({
                success: true,
                data: { content }
              })
            }]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [{
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify({
                success: false,
                error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
              })
            }],
            isError: true
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • src/sse.ts:24-24 (registration)
    Invocation of registerTools in the main server setup, which registers the 'get_editing_codes' tool (and others) on the MCP server instance.
    registerTools(server, contentReader);
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.

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/x51xxx/osp-marketing-tools-mcp'

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