Skip to main content
Glama

OpenArx

by ai.openarx

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: only own agent-created drafts can be published, publishing is the billable event, returns indexing status and IDs, and lists specific error types. It also mentions unrecognized metadata keys are dropped. It could mention if the action is irreversible, but overall is transparent.

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 roughly 5 sentences and front-loads the main purpose. It is concise but could be slightly more compact; still, every sentence adds essential information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (3 params, nested metadata, no output schema), the description explains the return format (indexing status + IDs), error cases, and relationship to create_draft. It also covers metadata handling and run_id provenance. This is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value: draft_id must be from own account and create_draft; metadata keys like COI/license/title are required at publish; run_id attribution and provenance check are explained. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'publish' and the resource 'one of YOUR OWN Portal drafts', distinguishing it from siblings like create_draft (which creates drafts) and submit_document (which submits full documents). It specifies the scope and the source of drafts.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use: when you have a draft created with create_draft. It also states what is rejected (someone else's draft, human-staged, non-existent). However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or when not to use, though the context implies it's the only way to publish drafts.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between explore_topic and methodist_explore_topic, and between find_related and find_related_claims. Descriptions generally differentiate them well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with methodist_ prefix for research workflow tools, though 'paginate' and 'methodist' (without underscore) are minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a single server's scope, exceeding the 25+ threshold. The server combines two major workflows (literature search and research process guidance), which would be better split.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: multiple search modes, document submission and versioning, topic exploration, evidence checking, methodology search, and research guidance. Minor gaps include lack of document deletion or metadata update without new version.

Resources