Preview what Save & Publish (or the pending scheduled publish, if one exists) would change: added/removed/changed lines, and within each changed line the added/removed/changed endpoints and targets, plus any project-level setting change. Outbound auth secrets are redacted the same as get_config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the read-only and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that outbound auth secrets are redacted 'the same as get_config' and that it handles both immediate and pending scheduled publishes, providing security and scope details beyond 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?
The description is two sentences, with the first using a colon to clearly list the diff components, and the second adding the redaction caveat. Every phrase provides useful information with no fluff or repetition.
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?
Given the lack of parameters and output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope: what action it previews, what types of changes are reported, and redaction behavior. It does not specify edge cases like an empty diff, but this is a minor gap for a read-only preview tool.
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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty. With zero parameters, there is nothing for the description to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly omits parameter information because none exist.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('what Save & Publish would change'), and lists detailed output categories (added/removed/changed lines, endpoints, targets, project-level settings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_config by focusing on the diff preview rather than the current config state.
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?
The usage context is clear: this tool previews changes before a Save & Publish or scheduled publish. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
