publish_note_listingPublish or update a complete-note marketplace listing after readiness and client confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noteId | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes | ||
| amountMinor | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| languageMode | No | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes | ||
| readinessToken | Yes | ||
| contentLanguage | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| effects | Yes | ||
| listing | Yes | ||
| listingUrl | 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?
Annotations already establish that this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), non-destructive write. The description adds genuine value beyond that: "publish or update" reveals upsert behavior, and "after readiness... confirmation" implies the tool enforces a readiness gate and may fail when a valid readinessToken is absent. No statement contradicts the 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?
A single 14-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and appends the precondition at the end. There is zero filler; every word contributes either scope or sequencing information.
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?
Despite an output schema and annotations covering safety and return values, this tool has 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, a near-twin sibling (publish_media_listing), and a prerequisite sibling (validate_listing_readiness). The description leaves critical gaps: how readinessToken is obtained, what distinguishes this from publish_media_listing, and the unit semantics of amountMinor. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 8 parameters (5 required) but explains none of them. "After readiness" only loosely maps to readinessToken, and no meaning is added for amountMinor/currency units, idempotencyKey behavior, or the languageMode/contentLanguage distinction. The burden shift required at 0% coverage is unmet.
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?
"Publish or update" is a specific verb with clear upsert semantics, and "complete-note marketplace listing" names the resource precisely. The "complete-note" qualifier implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling publish_media_listing. However, it stops short of explicitly naming a contrasting sibling, so differentiation is partly left to inference.
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?
"After readiness and client confirmation" gives an explicit sequencing precondition, implying the agent should run validate_listing_readiness and obtain client sign-off before invoking. It does not name any alternative tools or state exclusions, such as when publish_media_listing or publish_page would be the correct choice.
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 target a distinct resource and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.