Skip to main content
Glama

republish_published_course

Restore a previously unpublished course to its domain by setting it live and generating a new slug; enrollments and learner progress stay intact.

Instructions

Put a previously unpublished course back on its domain.

    `id` is the published-course id of the publication to bring back.

    Sets `live` to true and REASSIGNS the slug. The slug is regenerated, not
    restored: if another course claimed the old one while this was down, or the
    title changed, THE PUBLIC URL WILL BE DIFFERENT. Read the returned `slug` and
    update any links rather than assuming the old address still works.

    Enrollments and learner progress are untouched throughout.

    Requires the `published-courses:write` OAuth scope.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
liveNo
slugNo
course_idNo
domain_idNo
is_hiddenNo
created_atNo
external_idNo
modified_atNo
open_accessNo
visible_on_catalogNo
access_period_ends_atNo
access_period_starts_atNo
visibility_override_typeNo
require_all_prerequisitesNo
allow_self_service_reenrollNo
unique_progress_per_enrollmentNo
restrict_access_start_end_datesNo
strict_enforce_group_visibilityNo
Install Server

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description goes well beyond this by disclosing that it sets live to true, regenerates rather than restores the slug, warns that the public URL may change, instructs the agent to read the returned slug, and states that enrollments and learner progress are untouched. It also names the required OAuth scope.

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?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: it front-loads the core action, then explains the id parameter, the critical slug side-effect, the unaffected data, and the required scope. Every sentence adds necessary context without repetition or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has one parameter, an output schema is present, and the description covers invocation, side effects, return-value guidance (read the returned slug), unaffected data, and authorization. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly appears to be missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema only provides the parameter title 'Id', with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that `id` is 'the published-course id of the publication to bring back,' which clarifies the parameter's meaning and role enough for correct invocation.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Put a previously unpublished course back on its domain') and identifies the exact resource and state transition. It distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_courses and unpublish_published_course by emphasizing 'back' and 'previously unpublished'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly conveys when this tool is appropriate: for bringing back a publication that was previously taken down. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'previously unpublished' and 'bring back' give clear contextual guidance without ambiguity.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CloudSecurityAlliance/csa-skilljar'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server