publish_articlePublish an article to the website's connected platform (WordPress, Shopify, Webflow, etc.). Set publish_as_draft=true to push it as an unpublished draft in the CMS instead of going live. Before calling, show the user the article and destination and obtain explicit approval. Every call requires confirm_publish=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blog_id | Yes | ||
| confirm_publish | No | ||
| publish_as_draft | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description builds on this by adding critical behavioral context: it can publish live or as a draft, it requires confirm_publish=true on every call, and it demands prior user approval. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Four short sentences, each carrying essential information: the core action, the draft option, the approval requirement, and the confirmation requirement. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 destructive publish action with no output schema, the description provides enough guidance for safe and correct invocation: what it does, how to avoid going live, and the mandatory confirmation flag. A small gap is the lack of detail about what happens after publishing or how blog_id relates to the chosen destination, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains publish_as_draft and states that confirm_publish must be true, which adds real meaning beyond the bare boolean schema. However, blog_id is left unexplained; while 'destination' hints at its role, the description does not explicitly map blog_id to the target CMS/blog.
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 uses a specific verb ('Publish'), names the resource ('an article'), and identifies the destination ('the website's connected platform') with concrete examples. It also differentiates the draft mode from live publishing, so it is clearly distinct from the read-only and generation-focused sibling tools.
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 description clearly establishes when the tool should be used: when an article is ready to be pushed to a connected CMS, with an explicit user approval step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate invocation.
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 a distinct resource and action, making selection straightforward. Minor overlap exists between get_ai_search_traffic and get_search_performance's AI-assistant traffic section, and among the three search-performance reporting tools, but descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_, generate_, get_, list_, publish_, request_, run_. The verbs are descriptive and every noun object clearly identifies the resource being acted on.
At 18 tools the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the scope is broad enough to justify it: website management, article generation, publishing, search analytics, AI search, indexing, backlinks, and auditing. No tool feels redundant enough to remove.
The surface covers the main SEO lifecycle well: websites, keyword plans, articles, publishing, search performance, indexing, backlinks, and audits. Obvious gaps are article update/delete operations and website removal, but agents can work around these for most core workflows.