suggest_article_changeSubmit a change to a published page. A spam and abuse check runs first; a change that passes is stored as pending and is not published. [sign-in required]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| detail | Yes | ||
| sources | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| proposed_markdown | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gate | No | ||
| queued | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| published | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "gate": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "published": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "queued": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "published",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: a spam/abuse check runs first, and a passing change is stored as pending and not published. That non-publication and moderation detail is exactly the context annotations cannot express, though rate limits or what happens to earlier pending suggestions are unstated.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the moderation outcome, then the auth prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the auth requirement plus pending-status outcome are covered. But for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the omission of any parameter-level guidance leaves the definition only minimally 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?
All 5 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and adds nothing about path, summary, detail, sources, or proposed_markdown. An agent gets no hint that proposed_markdown is the actual replacement text versus detail being the rationale.
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?
States a specific verb (submit a change) and resource (a published page), which implicitly separates it from the sibling propose_new_article that handles new articles. However, it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'change to a published page' plus '[sign-in required]' suggests when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as propose_new_article or suggest_topic. The prerequisite (sign-in) is the one concrete guidance given.
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.