publish_ai_packPublish the exact current version after every mandatory Agent AVCP gate passes. Paid packs additionally need Stripe Connect before checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | Tetrees AI Pack product id | |
| confirmation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the publish action and prerequisites but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., making the pack public, irreversibility). It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so no red flags, but more transparency about consequences would be better.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently states the core action and key preconditions, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main publish scenario and preconditions, which is sufficient for a tool with no output schema. It lacks details about return values or error conditions, but these are not critical given the straightforward action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes productId as 'Tetrees AI Pack product id', but confirmation has no description. However, the const value 'PUBLISH_AGENT_PACK' is self-explanatory. The tool description does not add extra context for either parameter, so semantics are only partially covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Publish the exact current version') and the resource (AI pack), and includes specific conditions (after AVCP gates pass, Stripe Connect for paid packs). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like submit or update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit preconditions: use after mandatory AVCP gates pass, and for paid packs after Stripe Connect. While it does not directly contrast with alternative tools, the conditional guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct by action and resource, though several clusters (accept/propose/select/list growth, prepare/execute/run) require careful reading of descriptions to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, with clear action prefixes and descriptive resource nouns.
With 26 tools, the set exceeds the recommended range and feels heavy, even though the domain covers publishing, runtime, growth, and reporting workflows.
The toolkit covers the main AI pack lifecycle—authoring, publishing, acquisition, running, searching, and reporting—but lacks explicit delete/revoke operations for drafts or entitlements.