Skip to main content
Glama
x51xxx

OSP Marketing Tools MCP Server

by x51xxx

get_writing_guide

Access systematic principles for creating high-quality technical content with narrative structure, flow, style, and accuracy guidelines.

Instructions

Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) writing guide and usage protocol for creating high-quality technical content. This guide provides systematic principles for narrative structure, flow, style, and technical accuracy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler implementation for the 'get_writing_guide' tool, registered inline with the MCP server. It reads the 'guide-llm.md' file using ContentReader and returns its content as structured JSON text response, including error handling.
    server.tool(
      "get_writing_guide", 
      "Get the Open Strategy Partners (OSP) writing guide and usage protocol for creating high-quality technical content. This guide provides systematic principles for narrative structure, flow, style, and technical accuracy.",
      async (_extra) => {
        try {
          const content = await contentReader.readMarkdownFile('guide-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
          };
        }
      }
    );
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.

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