MarkupBase

publish_version

Idempotent

Publish an immutable source version to an artifact owned by this principal and remap preserved thread anchors. expectedLatestVersionId must match the current latest version, or be null for the first version, so concurrent work is never overwritten. Returns the new version plus carried, outdated, and failed comment-remapping counts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	Yes	Complete Markdown or sanitized HTML source for the new immutable version.
`documentId`	Yes	ID of the artifact containing the target resource.
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	Stable unique key for this intended change; reuse only to retry the same inputs.
`expectedLatestVersionId`	Yes	Current latest version ID, or null only when publishing the first version.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	Yes	Metadata for one immutable artifact version.
`comments`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses immutability, thread anchor remapping, concurrency safety (no overwriting), and the return structure with counts. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, which only provide generic hints about read/write/idempotency/destructiveness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three focused sentences with action-first phrasing, no redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, key precondition, and return value.

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 an output schema, detailed parameter descriptions, and annotations, the tool is well documented. The description covers core behavior, concurrency, and return counts; only minor details like what 'preserved thread anchors' entail are left implicit, but overall it is complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, providing a baseline. The description goes further by explaining expectedLatestVersionId's role as a concurrency guard and mentioning the returned counts, adding semantics not fully captured in the schema.

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 tool publishes an immutable source version to an artifact and remaps preserved thread anchors, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_document by focusing on version publication rather than document creation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides a concrete concurrency precondition: expectedLatestVersionId must match the current latest version or be null for the first version. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like create_document.

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

All MarkupBase tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: comment creation vs. reply, review request vs. completion, thread status vs. comment, document read vs. list. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities, and descriptions clarify precise usage.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_comment, complete_review, create_document, get_document, list_documents, list_review_inbox, list_threads, publish_version, reply_to_thread, request_review, set_thread_status). whoami deviates slightly but is a standard, recognizable exception.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well within the optimal 3-15 range and appropriately covers the document/review/thread domain without bloat or excessive abstraction. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle is covered: document creation/reading/versioning, review request/completion/inbox, and thread create/reply/status. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit document deletion or metadata update, but these do not hinder primary review workflows.

Resources

Need Help?