feature_siteToggle whether an owned, public site appears in the public shiply Explore gallery (https://shiply.now/explore). Only public-access sites are eligible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show | Yes | true to feature on Explore, false to remove | |
| slug | Yes | owned, public site slug |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / show / descriptionAdded value: +"true to feature on Explore, false to remove"Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"owned, public site slug"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint. The description uses 'Toggle' which could be misinterpreted as a flip rather than the setter indicated by the input schema (show boolean). It adds the eligibility condition but does not clarify error behavior or side effects beyond what schema suggests.
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 sentences cover purpose and constraint with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers purpose, eligibility, and context (gallery URL). Missing details about error conditions or side effects like notifications, but acceptable for a simple boolean-setter tool.
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 baseline 3. The description adds context about the gallery and eligibility but does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond their schema definitions.
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 tool toggles whether a site appears in the public Explore gallery, specifying the verb (toggle) and resource (site on Explore), with a link and eligibility condition (public-access only). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like promote_site or publish_site.
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 (when you own a public site and want to show/hide it on Explore) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state preconditions like site ownership. It mentions eligibility but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.