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. |
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
