Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

fnlowl

by com.fnlowl
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Request widget publish

request_widget_publish
Destructive

Ask for a draft widget to go live. This requests publication; it does not publish. Called over the API or MCP with a key it does NOT publish: it creates a pending approval carrying a before/after snapshot and returns it, and the widget goes live only when a signed-in person approves it in the dashboard. The result also says where the widget will appear (placement — going live does not put a quiz, survey, calculator or lead magnet on any page by itself) and lists warnings, such as copy that promises an email no active sequence will send.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "widgetId": "<widgetId>"
    },
    "name": "request_widget_publish"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoA project id from list_projects. Runs this call in that project instead of the connection default.
widgetIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that a pending approval record with a before/after snapshot is created, that the widget does not go live without a signed-in human approver, and that placement alone does not put a widget on a page. It also warns about `warnings` content such as copy promising an email with no active sequence — context the destructiveHint annotation cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layering disambiguation, return shape, and caveats in a logical order. The parenthetical asides about placement and email sequences are dense but each carries real decision-relevant information; a small amount of redundancy in restating 'it does NOT publish' twice.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what comes back (pending approval, snapshot, placement, warnings). What remains missing is the meaning of the required widgetId and any permissions/rate-limit expectations, but the behavioral picture is otherwise complete for a two-parameter mutation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: `project` is documented inline, but `widgetId` has no description anywhere. The prose never clarifies that widgetId must reference an existing draft widget, which is the key semantic the schema omits, so the description only partially compensates.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Ask for a draft widget to go live') and immediately disambiguates from the real publish action. An agent can distinguish this from create_widget/update_widget without consulting any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the workflow boundary: this requests publication and requires human dashboard approval, so it is not a substitute for actually going live. It does not name sibling tools (e.g. create_widget/update_widget) as prerequisites or alternatives, so routing is slightly incomplete.

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

All fnlowl 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