Publishes a ReoGridJsonDocument and returns a public URL. Anonymous; rate-limited per IP. No expiry in Phase 1. The doc must conform to the schema returned by get_schema().
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | A ReoGridJsonDocument (format=reogrid-json, version=1) | |
| title | No | Optional human-readable title |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively covers key behavioral traits: authentication (anonymous), rate limiting (per IP), expiration (no expiry in Phase 1), and validation constraint (must conform to get_schema). This is substantial transparency beyond the bare action.
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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key behavioral constraints, and the third adds a validation prerequisite. No wasted words; every sentence contributes necessary information.
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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, the validation requirement, and important behavioral constraints (rate limit, no expiry). It could mention error handling or the exact structure of the returned URL, but the essentials are present. For a simple publish operation, this is adequately 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that the 'doc' parameter must conform to the schema returned by get_schema(), which gives validation context not present in the schema property description. The 'title' parameter is already well-described in the schema.
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?
Clearly states the action ('Publishes a ReoGridJsonDocument') and the result ('returns a public URL'). This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes the tool from its sibling getters (get_feature_spec, get_schema, get_sheet).
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?
Provides contextual usage guidance: anonymous access, rate-limiting per IP, and no expiry in Phase 1. It also implies a prerequisite by stating the document must conform to get_schema(), which directs the agent to call a sibling first. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but the context is sufficient for basic use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
