tmaker_publishPublishes skeleton HTML to the active site and replaces all of its templates. Changes the look of the whole public site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pda | No | Publish the mobile (PDA) skeleton instead of the desktop one. | |
| tmpl | Yes | Skeleton HTML. | |
| action | Yes | Operation to run. Each oneOf entry describes one action and lists its parameters. | |
| confirm | Yes | Pass true only after the user approves this change. Required by: skeleton_publish. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "action"
-]New value: +[
+ "action",
+ "tmpl",
+ "confirm"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden alone. It still adds real blast-radius context beyond the annotations: all templates are replaced and the entire public site's appearance changes. It does not mention the automatic backup/refusal behavior, but that is documented in the action enum description.
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 short sentences, zero filler, and the destructive scope is front-loaded before the user-facing consequence. Nothing is repeated from the name or title alone.
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, open-world publish with no output schema, the description covers what is changed and how broadly. The remaining operational details (backup, refusal on backup failure, confirm approval) are fully specified in the schema, so the description is nearly 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 100% and every parameter (pda, tmpl, action, confirm) is documented in-schema, including the backup-and-refusal semantics and the confirm approval rule. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: publishes skeleton HTML to the active site and replaces all its templates. The scope ('active site', 'all of its templates') distinguishes it from tmaker_write/templates_write, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'Changes the look of the whole public site' signals this is a high-impact, site-wide operation, which helps an agent decide whether to reach for it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to tmaker_write versus this publish step, and the confirm-gating workflow appears only in the schema.
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.