creative_unpublish_articleTake a live Creative Library article down. It stops being public and leaves the sitemap immediately. The draft is preserved and can be re-published after review. Use this to reverse a publication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The live article slug. | |
| shelf | Yes | The live article shelf. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it stops being public, leaves sitemap, preserves draft, and allows republishing. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
Three succinct sentences that cover operation, effect, and consequence. No fluff or repetition.
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?
For a simple unpublish action with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers key points: public status, sitemap, draft preservation. It could mention response or prerequisites, but it's adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for slug and shelf. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score is appropriate.
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 tool takes down a live Creative Library article, making it non-public and removing from sitemap. It distinguishes from siblings like creative_publish_article by specifying the reverse operation.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use this to reverse a publication,' indicating when to use. It also notes the draft is preserved and can be republished, providing context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.
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.
Despite the high tool count, most tools have distinct purposes with thorough descriptions that specify when to use each. Some overlap exists among creative direction tools (call_creative_worlds vs chat_with_creative_worlds), but the descriptions clarify usage patterns.
Naming conventions are inconsistent overall: some follow verb_noun (create_powersource_url, decode_ad), others use noun_verb or compound names (adformula_intelligence, fleet_analytics_overview). However, subgroups like dispatch_* and list_*_presets maintain internal consistency.
112 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 range for well-scoped servers. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number likely overwhelms agents and suggests insufficient consolidation of related operations.
The tool set covers core creative intelligence workflows: brand analysis, ad decoding, script generation, creative direction, and research. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no social media publishing tools), but the main use cases are well-supported.