Remove the current public publication. Draft and enquiries are retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revision | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | No | Optional. Set a random key and reuse it exactly when retrying, so a retry is not applied twice |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idempotencyKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"Unique random key for this operation; reuse exactly when retrying"New value: +"Optional. Set a random key and reuse it exactly when retrying, so a retry is not applied twice"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "revision",
- "idempotencyKey"
-]New value: +[
+ "revision"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that drafts and enquiries are retained. It does not cover permissions or restoration behavior, but it meaningfully supplements the safety annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no wasted wording. The retention note is immediately relevant and easy to scan.
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 effect and retention behavior, which is helpful for a destructive mutation. However, it leaves the required revision parameter unexplained and gives no prerequisite or recovery context, so it is only minimally complete for correct invocation.
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 required revision parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not explain what revision means or how it should be supplied. The optional idempotencyKey is documented in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the current public publication.' It clearly contrasts with publishing and notes that drafts and enquiries remain, though it does not explicitly name the sibling publish_site tool.
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?
Usage is implied by the action and by the note that drafts and enquiries are retained, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as publish_site or publication_status.
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.