publish_articlePublish a generated article to the site's connected CMS. Enforces Spook's SEO-score floor - a draft below it is refused (returns published:false with a reason). (requires an agent API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| articleId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavior: SEO-score enforcement, refusal with 'published:false', and the API key requirement. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by key constraints. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirement, and failure mode. It lacks explicit success response details but the refusal explanation partially compensates.
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?
The schema has a single required articleId with no description. The description only implies the article is generated, but does not clarify where to obtain articleId or its format. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a clear gap.
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 'Publish a generated article to the site's connected CMS', providing a specific verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_article or update_publishing by focusing on the publishing action.
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 specifies the target (generated articles) and a prerequisite (agent API key), and the SEO-score floor implies when the tool should not be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer another tool.
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 have distinct purposes, but word-counter and character-counter overlap heavily, and meta-tag-generator subsumes several other generators (title, description, canonical). The sheer number of adjacent content generators creates some ambiguity, though descriptions generally clarify.
Tool names are inconsistent: some use snake_case (create_site, get_article, list_articles) while others use hyphenated lowercase (ad-copy-generator, meta-tag-generator, robots-txt-generator). This mixing of conventions makes it hard for an agent to predict the name for a given action.
With 59 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a typical MCP server. Many tools are similar (various calculators, many content generators) and could be consolidated, making the surface bloated and harder to navigate.
The server covers a broad range of SEO tasks: site management, article generation/publishing, analytics, technical SEO, and content tools. However, there are gaps such as missing update/delete operations for articles and no backlink analysis, leaving some workflows incomplete.