publish_from_driveSnapshot a Drive (or a prefix of it) into a new live site at .shiply.now. Files copied server-side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | display title for the new site | |
| prefix | No | only snapshot files under this path prefix | |
| driveId | Yes | drive id (drv_…) or "default" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / driveId / descriptionAdded value: +"drive id (drv_…) or \"default\""Input schema / properties / prefix / descriptionAdded value: +"only snapshot files under this path prefix"Input schema / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"display title for the new site"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?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation, notably that files are 'copied server-side'. This provides useful insight into the operation's nature.
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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and constraints.
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 the presence of an output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description sufficiently covers the tool's main action. However, it omits details about the return value or the meaning of <slug>, which are left to the output schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 snapshot a Drive to create a live site, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like publish_site or promote_site, which may have similar purposes.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as publish_site or pull_site. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.