lyra-browser

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

publish

Make an approved draft public by selecting its live control and submitting the form, ensuring content reaches an audience only after human confirmation.

Instructions

Make a draft public — the one action that sends content to an audience.

Kept apart from every other tool so that writing a draft can never publish it: this asks for PUBLISH, which is single-use and implied by nothing, and it is the only tool that buys it.

A site splits this across two controls and means neither of them alone. Measured on KVR: the publish radio (input[name=is_draft][value='0'] on a news item, input[name=is_live][value='1'] on a product) only arms the form — the item travels on the form's own Submit. Switching the radio and stopping would leave the page primed to publish on someone else's next click, which is worse than not switching it at all. So give both:

selector — the control that carries the item live, from read_form's drafts list.
submit — the control that sends the form. Required: read_form reports the candidates in submitText, and on KVR they are one button (Submit on a news item, Add on a product). This is the request that actually publicises the item, so nothing else in this tool surface may send a form whose publish control is set.

Call this only when a human has approved the exact item. Show them what will go public and get their answer first; the approval prompt this raises is the second gate, not the first. Afterwards read_form reads back the state the page actually reached.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No
`submit`	No
`confirm`	No
`selector`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and does so: it discloses that PUBLISH is single-use and implied by nothing, that the tool is the only buyer of it, that switching a radio alone can leave the page primed for a later publish, and that the approval prompt is a second gate. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutating action.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded and the two-bullet parameter layout is efficient, but the middle section carries rhetorical padding ('which is worse than not switching it at all') and restates the single-use PUBLISH idea twice. For a destructive action some verbosity is defensible, yet the prose is longer than the operational content requires.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the approval workflow, the two-control model, and post-action readback via read_form. The unexplained confirm/reason parameters and the required-field mismatch with the schema are the remaining gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains selector (the control carrying the item live, drawn from read_form's drafts) and submit (the request that actually publicises, candidates in submitText) with real operational meaning. However, reason and confirm are never mentioned, and the text labels submit '**Required**' while the schema marks only selector required — a discrepancy worth resolving.

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 and resource — 'Make a draft public — the one action that sends content to an audience' — and explicitly carves itself out from siblings: 'Kept apart from every other tool so that writing a draft can never publish it.' An agent can distinguish this from save_draft without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit gating condition ('Call this only when a human has approved the exact item'), describes the alternative behavior it forbids ('nothing else in this tool surface may send a form whose publish control is set'), and names the sibling that supplies the inputs (read_form's drafts/submitText).

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