docs-publisher

edit_tutorial

Replace an exact, unique text string in an existing tutorial to make targeted edits without rewriting the full document.

Instructions

Make a targeted edit to an existing tutorial by replacing an exact piece of text. The old text must appear exactly once.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "old_text": "<old_text>",
      "new_text": "<new_text>"
    },
    "name": "edit_tutorial"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Tutorial path relative to the docs folder
`new_text`	Yes	Replacement text
`old_text`	Yes	Exact text to replace (must be unique in the file)
`commit_message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does usefully disclose the exact-match/uniqueness matching rule — the tool's most important behavioral trait. It omits what happens on failure or non-unique matches, whether the edit is committed/versioned, and whether anything must be published afterward to take effect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action and its hard constraint front-loaded in that order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations and no output schema needs more: error behavior for non-unique or missing text, the effect of commit_message, and whether the change is live or must be published via the sibling publish_tutorial are all absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so path, old_text and new_text are already documented. The description only restates the uniqueness constraint already present in the old_text schema entry, and says nothing about the undocumented commit_message parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("Make a targeted edit to an existing tutorial") with the mechanism spelled out (exact text replacement). This clearly separates it from list_tutorials, read_tutorial, publish_tutorial and delete_tutorial without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The condition "old text must appear exactly once" implies this is for surgical single-occurrence edits rather than rewrites, but no alternative or prerequisite is stated (e.g. read_tutorial first, or what to do when the text occurs multiple times). Usage is implied rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server