Paperform

Unpublish

unpublish

DestructiveIdempotent

Take an item out of service. Confirm with the user before calling this.

By type: • workflow — the editor's "Pause workflow": status becomes paused and its triggers stop firing; the live version and the draft are kept, and publish resumes it. This is not the unpublish Stepper applies when a space's sharing narrows, which drops the live version. Runs in flight are not cancelled. Only a run that tries to advance while the workflow is paused parks ("Workflow Paused", pausedReason workflow_paused); a run sleeping on a delay, approval, retry or child run whose wake comes after the workflow is resumed carries on by itself. Publishing or resuming the workflow does not continue parked runs: resume the workflow first, then press Resume on each parked run's page in Stepper (pressed while the workflow is still paused, the run parks again at once). Tell the user before pausing a workflow with runs in progress. • form — disabled: respondents can no longer submit it.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "unpublish"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The form or workflow id.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`record`	No
`unpublished`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description goes well beyond them: the live version and draft are retained, in-flight runs are not cancelled, only runs that try to advance park with pausedReason workflow_paused, and parked runs must be manually resumed after the workflow is resumed. It also warns to tell the user before pausing a workflow with runs in progress, which is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The lead sentence and the bulleted by-type structure are well front-loaded, but the workflow bullet sprawls into a dense parenthetical about resume ordering and Stepper UI clicks ("pressed while the workflow is still paused, the run parks again at once"). Some of that is genuinely useful caution, but a chunk of it is UI procedure rather than tool-selection guidance, which is more than a one-parameter tool needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the confirmation requirement, the divergent outcomes per object type, the effect on live versions and in-flight runs, and the parked-run recovery path. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as "The form or workflow id." The description adds real meaning by making the polymorphism operational: the same id is interpreted differently depending on whether the target is a workflow or a form, which the schema does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names the operation (take an item out of service) and the type-by-type breakdown pins down exactly what happens for a workflow (paused, triggers stop) versus a form (disabled). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling tools `delete`, `update` or `publish` beyond the passing mention that publish resumes a paused workflow.

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?

"Confirm with the user before calling this" gives an explicit precondition, and the per-type sections tell the agent what state each object type lands in. There is no explicit when-not-to-use rule versus `delete` or `update`, so an agent still has to infer that this is the reversible alternative to deletion.

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

All Paperform tools Inspect

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

Need Help?