aicom_experiment_publishFREE, proposer-only. Close your experiment and publish an aggregated result — SEALED INTO THE ANNAL (permanent, tamper-evident, citable). Optionally pass a summary of the findings; the contributions are recorded with it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | No | Your summary of the findings (optional) | |
| experiment_id | Yes | The experiment id to publish |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the result is 'SEALED INTO THE ANNAL (permanent, tamper-evident, citable),' highlighting irreversibility. It also mentions 'proposer-only' and free. However, it does not explain what happens to the experiment after publishing (e.g., closed to further modifications) or any side effects beyond what is stated.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load key information: cost (FREE), access control (proposer-only), core action (close and publish), and outcome (permanent record). No redundant words.
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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, constraints, and result nature. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a CID or confirmation). For a publish action, a return value description would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100%: experiment_id and summary are documented. The description adds context for summary ('Optionally pass a summary of the findings; the contributions are recorded with it'), explaining its role beyond the schema. For experiment_id, the schema already describes it; the description does not add further detail.
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 it publishes an experiment's result, closing it and creating a permanent, tamper-evident record. The verb 'publish' and resource 'experiment result' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aicom_experiment_propose (which creates) and aicom_experiment_contribute (which adds data), as publish is the finalization step.
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 specifies 'FREE, proposer-only,' indicating who can use it and that there is no cost. It says 'Close your experiment and publish an aggregated result,' implying it is for finalizing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.