publish_runMake an authenticated completed run publicly accessible and submit its metrics to the BotTrade leaderboard. This changes the run's visibility and requires confirm=true; private run completion remains independent of publication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | Completed run UUID returned by start_run. | |
| confirm | Yes | Explicit publication confirmation; the server rejects the call unless this is true. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / confirm / descriptionPrevious value: -"Must be true to publish."New value: +"Explicit publication confirmation; the server rejects the call unless this is true."Input schema / properties / run_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Run UUID."New value: +"Completed run UUID returned by start_run."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate false for readOnly and destructive, and true for openWorld. The description adds context: the action changes visibility, requires authentication, and submits metrics. It goes beyond annotations by detailing the confirmation requirement and the independence of publication from completion.
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: the first states the core function, the second adds conditions and clarifications. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key purpose.
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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the action (visibility change, metrics submission) and prerequisites. It does not explain post-publication effects or return values, but the tool's outcome is clear. Minor gap: what confirms or indicates success.
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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add new information beyond what is in the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'completed run UUID' for run_id, 'explicit publication confirmation' for confirm). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 publishes a completed run to the leaderboard, making it publicly accessible and submitting metrics. The verb 'publish' and resource 'run' are specific, and the scope (authenticated, completed) distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_run' or 'start_run'.
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 implies the tool should be used when a run is completed and requires authentication and confirmation. It explicitly states 'confirm=true' is required and that private run completion remains independent, guiding when to use. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.
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.