Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Pugi

by io.pugi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Publish a built site

publish
DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when the person asks to put a Pugi website or app live ("publish", "go live"). Free. Puts the latest version on its pugi.app address after the security check every Pugi publish runs; publishing again replaces the live version.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "publish"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idNoThe job_id of the build (or the latest edit) to publish.
languageNoThe language the person is writing in, as a BCP 47 tag such as "ru".
project_idNoOr the project_id of that site.
idempotency_keyNoOptional. Reuse it to retry the same publish.
publish_with_samplesNoOnly after the person saw the list of sample details this tool answered with (sample_facts_remain) and chose to keep them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / publish_with_samples
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only after the person saw the list of sample details this tool answered with (sample_facts_remain) and chose to keep them.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / language
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The language the person is writing in, as a BCP 47 tag such as \"ru\".",
+  "maxLength": 35,
+  "pattern": "^[a-z]{2,3}(-[A-Za-z0-9]{2,8})?$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, but the description adds real substance: publishing is free, every publish runs a security check, and re-publishing replaces the live version (concrete meaning for destructiveHint). It stops short of describing failure modes or what the security check can reject.

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 tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and no filler. The 'Free' fragment is terse but earns its place as a decision-relevant fact.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive, open-world publish operation with no output schema, the description covers cost, replacement semantics, and the security gate. It leaves a real gap: the schema references a prior response ('sample_facts_remain') implying a two-step sample-confirmation flow that the description never explains, and no guidance on failure or how to verify the result.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so job_id, project_id, language, and idempotency_key are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies; notably it does not explain the job_id-versus-project_id choice or the publish_with_samples round trip.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('put a Pugi website or app live') and ties it to the concrete outcome of a pugi.app address. It is distinguishable from build_site/build_app, though it never names the sibling publish_status that an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit trigger phrasing ('when the person asks ... "publish", "go live"'), which is exactly the kind of routing cue an agent needs. It offers no when-not guidance (e.g., do not publish before a build completes) and does not point to publish_status for checking the result.

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

All Pugi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources