publish_api_templatePublish an api template version, making it the version workflows resolve when they reference it @published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | the version number to make live | |
| template_id | Yes | the template id to publish |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| version | No | ||
| definition | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| template_id | Yes | ||
| display_name | Yes | ||
| latest_version | Yes | ||
| last_published_version | Yes |
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?
The description discloses the behavioral effect (making the version the one workflows resolve to). Given the annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint false), the description adds useful context about what publishing accomplishes without contradicting the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and clearly states the outcome. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 simple publish operation with two well-described parameters and no nested objects, the description provides sufficient context. It does not mention return values, but an output schema is indicated, and the operation's purpose is fully conveyed.
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?
Both parameters are described in the schema (template_id and version), and the descriptions are clear and accurate. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value but confirms the role of each parameter.
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 the action (publish an API template version) and its effect (making it the version workflows resolve). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling publish tools for other resource types by specifying 'api template'.
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool—when you want to set a specific version as the live one that workflows reference. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like create_api_template_version or update_api_template, but the purpose is clear enough for typical usage.
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.
Every resource family follows the same verb+noun pattern and each tool name uniquely identifies a resource-action pair (create_app vs create_app_version vs update_app vs publish_app). Closest overlaps like analyze_resource vs get_resource_graph and patch_datafile vs update_datafile are explicitly differentiated by their descriptions, so misselection risk is low despite the scale.
Names are almost uniformly verb_noun snake_case with a consistent lifecycle vocabulary: create/get/update/delete/list/publish/unpublish/version. Minor outliers like whoami and run_schedule_now are idiomatic and do not break the predictability of the set.
At 93 tools this far exceeds the calibration's 50+ extreme-mismatch case. The count is inflated by repeating create/get/update/delete/version/publish/unpublish across ten resource families; even though each family is systematic, the combined surface is very hard for an agent to navigate and keep in context.
Core CRUD/publish/version lifecycles are present for apps, workflows, endpoints, schedules, schemas, datafiles, and api templates, and dependency analysis is well covered. However, secret creation/updating, asset upload, custom-domain deletion, and version-range enumeration for several resource types are absent or left to the external dashboard, so agents hit a few manual dead ends.