Activate and immediately publish an inactive line so it serves traffic again. Blocked at the active-line cap — deactivate another line first. Requires edit access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lineKey | Yes | The line key, e.g. "v1". | |
| commitMode | No | Defaults to publish. Draft writes require draftRevision. | |
| draftRevision | No | Current line draft revision, required for draft writes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / commitModeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Defaults to publish. Draft writes require draftRevision.",
+ "enum": [
+ "draft",
+ "publish"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / draftRevisionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Current line draft revision, required for draft writes.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: immediate publication, cap blocking, and edit access requirement. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or destructiveHint flags.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then constraints and permission requirements. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy.
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?
Description covers purpose, operational constraint, and permission. Schema documents all parameters. Missing return value or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this isn't critical.
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 descriptions cover all three parameters at 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate per guidelines.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'activate' and resource 'line' with immediate publishing outcome. It distinguishes from siblings like deactivate_line by explaining the tool serves traffic again.
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?
Provides contextual guidance: blocked at the active-line cap, requiring deactivation first, and requiring edit access. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for similar operations like schedule_line_publish.
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.