Brain Scanner

publish_project_assessment

Idempotent

Publish a bounded privacy-filtered roadmap assessment for one exact Brain Scanner graph version. A supported methodology upgrade requires the current expectedAssessmentRevisionToken from assessmentProvenance. The server recomputes implementation and release-evidence meters; client-supplied scores, source contents, absolute paths, credentials, and private repository data are rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	Yes	Owned project ID returned by list_linked_projects or map_project; do not use a local path or repository URL.
`sessionId`	No	Owned project ID returned by list_linked_projects or map_project; do not use a local path or repository URL.
`graphDigest`	Yes
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	Caller-generated retry key. Reuse the same key and identical payload only to retry the same mutation; use a new key for a new action.
`assessmentProjection`	Yes
`expectedProjectVersion`	Yes	Current hosted project version from get_project_status; guards against overwriting a newer graph publication.
`expectedAssessmentRevisionToken`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / assessmentProjection / properties / requirements / items / properties / requirementIds / items / description
```
Added value: +"Owned project ID returned by list_linked_projects or map_project; do not use a local path or repository URL."
```

addedInput schema / properties / expectedProjectVersion / description

Added value: +"Current hosted project version from get_project_status; guards against overwriting a newer graph publication."

addedInput schema / properties / idempotencyKey / description

Added value: +"Caller-generated retry key. Reuse the same key and identical payload only to retry the same mutation; use a new key for a new action."

addedInput schema / properties / projectId / description

Added value: +"Owned project ID returned by list_linked_projects or map_project; do not use a local path or repository URL."

addedInput schema / properties / sessionId / description

Added value: +"Owned project ID returned by list_linked_projects or map_project; do not use a local path or repository URL."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / assessmentProjection / properties / requirements / items / properties / sourceReferences

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "endLine": {
+        "maximum": 10000000,
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "filePath": {
+        "maxLength": 500,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "startLine": {
+        "maximum": 10000000,
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "filePath",
+      "startLine",
+      "endLine"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 16,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds substantial value beyond that: the server recomputes implementation and release-evidence meters, and client-supplied scores, source contents, absolute paths, credentials, and private repo data are rejected. This materially informs behavior during a mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, token requirement, and server recompute/rejection constraints. Front-loaded with the core action, with no filler, though the middle sentence could be tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex mutation with a large nested payload and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral constraints an agent needs: single-version scoping, the revision-token requirement, and server-side recompute. It does not describe return behavior, but with no output schema this is a minor gap given how much else is covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 57% schema description coverage and a deeply nested schema, the description compensates by explaining the role of expectedAssessmentRevisionToken and the class of data that will be rejected. It still doesn't clarify several required top-level params (graphDigest, idempotencyKey semantics) beyond what the schema states, but adds real meaning for the most consequential field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Publish) and resource (a bounded, privacy-filtered roadmap assessment) scoped to one exact Brain Scanner graph version. It is clear enough to distinguish the action from generic graph publishing, though it never names sibling tools like publish_project_graph or publish_presentation_request directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies when the revision token is needed (a supported methodology upgrade requires expectedAssessmentRevisionToken from assessmentProvenance), which gives useful conditional context. However it never states when to prefer this over alternatives like publish_project_graph, nor any explicit exclusions or preconditions beyond the token requirement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Brain Scanner tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?