Skip to main content
Glama

OpenArx

by ai.openarx
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

publish_draft

Publish one of YOUR OWN Portal drafts (a draft you created with create_draft) to OpenArx. Pass its draft_id and any publish-time metadata (coi_statement, license, title, authors, …) — supplied here because create_draft stays lightweight. Publishing is the billable event (the draft itself was free). You may only publish drafts on your own account that you created as an agent — someone else's draft, a human-staged draft, or a non-existent draft is rejected. Returns the publication result (indexing status + core_document_id / oarx_id), or a clear error (draft_ownership_denied / unknown_draft / stale_parent).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idNoOptional. The active methodist run_id (as returned by the methodist diagnose / get_current_dose door). Pass it whenever you call this tool while working inside a run, so the call is attributed to that run for the §8 usage crosscheck — attribution is run-anchored, so it stays correct even if your access token refreshes mid-run. Must be YOUR run: a run_id owned by a different principal, or a non-existent run_id, is rejected.
draft_idYesThe draft_id returned by create_draft — a draft on your own account that you created as an agent.
metadataNoOptional publish-time metadata — same field set as submit_document (coi_statement, license, title, authors, abstract, funding, data_availability, related_identifiers, embargo_until, doi, arxiv_id, source_url, arxiv_categories, …). Supply COI/license/title here at publish. Unrecognized keys are dropped.
main_fileNoOptional: which entry INSIDE your uploaded ZIP is the main document, as its path in the archive (e.g. "main.tex" or "paper/main.tex"). Omit it and the platform takes the single .pdf/.tex/.md at the archive root; a multi-file LaTeX project, or an archive wrapped in a folder, needs it named — the error then lists the candidates. Ignored for a PDF upload. Never the name of the uploaded file itself.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / main_file
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: which entry INSIDE your uploaded ZIP is the main document, as its path in the archive (e.g. \"main.tex\" or \"paper/main.tex\"). Omit it and the platform takes the single .pdf/.tex/.md at the archive root; a multi-file LaTeX project, or an archive wrapped in a folder, needs it named — the error then lists the candidates. Ignored for a PDF upload. Never the name of the uploaded file itself.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that publishing is the billable event (draft was free), that ownership is enforced (draft_ownership_denied), and that errors include unknown_draft and stale_parent. It also explains the run_id attribution behavior (run-anchored, survives token refresh). It doesn't detail the full return shape, but it names the key return fields (indexing status, core_document_id / oarx_id) and error cases, which is substantial behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then the billable-event warning, then ownership constraint, then return/error summary. Every sentence earns its place. It is longer than the HIGH calibration example, but the tool has more parameters and more behavioral nuance to convey. Slight deduction for the run_id explanation being split between the tool description and the schema description, creating minor redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational concerns: what to pass, why, ownership rules, billing, and error cases. It doesn't enumerate the full metadata field set (deferring to submit_document's field set), but that is a reasonable reference. The main gap is that it doesn't describe the exact structure of the publication result beyond naming two fields, but the error list and indexing-status mention are sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains why metadata is supplied here (create_draft stays lightweight), clarifies that unrecognized metadata keys are dropped, and gives concrete guidance on main_file (omit for single file at root, required for multi-file LaTeX, ignored for PDF, never the uploaded file name). The run_id description in the schema is already rich, and the tool description reinforces the attribution rationale. This exceeds the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Publish'), a specific resource ('one of YOUR OWN Portal drafts'), and the target system ('to OpenArx'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_draft (which creates the draft) and submit_document (which has the same metadata field set but is a different submission path). The ownership constraint is front-loaded, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: when publishing a draft you created with create_draft, and it names the alternative (create_draft) that stays lightweight. It also states exclusions: someone else's draft, a human-staged draft, or a non-existent draft is rejected. The run_id parameter guidance further clarifies when to pass it (when working inside a run). This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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

All OpenArx toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources