Send an approved article to a push CMS when content:publish permission is granted; pull CMS setups trigger publishing on approval.
Publish an approved article to a push CMS. Requires content:publish; webhook pull CMS runs on approval instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| article_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| connection_id | Yes | ||
| publish_status | No | draft |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the required permission scope (content:publish) and the fact that publishing routes only through push CMS connections. However, it says nothing about side effects, reversibility, or the important fact that the publish_status parameter defaults to 'draft', so the operation may not actually publish by default.
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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint and exception following. Every clause carries 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the auth and CMS-mode context is covered. The gap is the draft-by-default behavior of publish_status, which an agent must understand to use this tool correctly for a mutation of this weight.
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 0% and the description mentions none of the four parameters. Most critically, publish_status defaults to 'draft', which is in tension with the tool's stated job of publishing an approved article; the description neither explains this nor disambiguates it. Three required IDs are also completely unexplained.
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 (publish) and resource (article) and adds the discriminating scope 'to a push CMS', which separates it from the pull/webhook path and from siblings like update_cms_article, submit_article_draft, and pull_live_article. An agent can place this tool without opening the schema.
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?
Gives a precondition ('an approved article') and a when-not ('webhook pull CMS runs on approval instead'), which directly prevents misuse for pull-based connections. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use in that case, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.