Connect or disconnect an article's public URL to enable editor pull and CMS writeback. Provide article, project, and published URL; set URL to null to disconnect.
Connect or disconnect the public page URL for editor pull and CMS writeback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| article_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| published_url | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the two modes (connect/disconnect) but says nothing about permissions, URL validation, reversibility, or that the nullable published_url is what toggles the two modes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a three-parameter mutation with a nullable control value.
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 explained, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the critical connect-vs-disconnect mechanism (present vs null URL) and the roles of article_id/project_id unaddressed.
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% for all three required params. The description alludes to 'the public page URL', loosely mapping to published_url, but never mentions article_id or project_id, nor explains that passing a null URL performs the disconnect. It compensates for almost none of the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb (connect/disconnect) and resource (the public page URL) and adds scope (editor pull and CMS writeback). An agent can understand the operation, though no sibling tool is named to differentiate it from update_article or publish_article.
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 phrase 'for editor pull and CMS writeback' hints at context but states no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives among the many content siblings. Nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to edit_content_article, update_cms_article, or publish_article.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.