finn-seller-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

push_draft

Upload a local draft to finn.no as a private, unpublished ad. Creates or updates the draft, adds photos and fields, and returns finn.no validation results so you can fix issues before publishing.

Instructions

Upload a local draft to finn.no as a PRIVATE draft (not published, not visible).

    Creates the finn.no draft if needed, uploads photos, saves the fields and
    returns finn.no's own validation (`violations`). Safe to call repeatedly.

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": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "push_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses upsert semantics (creates draft if needed), side effects (uploads photos, saves fields), non-publication, and idempotency. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate/latency caveats, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences; the private/non-published guarantee is front-loaded ahead of the mechanics and return summary. Nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value mention is bonus rather than necessity, and the behavioral profile is unusually complete for an annotation-free tool. The only real gap is the meaning/origin of draft_id.

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?

Single parameter draft_id at 0% schema coverage. The phrase 'upload a local draft' implies draft_id identifies a local draft rather than a finn.no id, but the description never states this explicitly or says where the id comes from (e.g. create_draft or list_drafts). Additive but thin.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Specific verb+resource: uploads a local draft to finn.no as a PRIVATE draft. The parenthetical '(not published, not visible)' clearly separates it from publish_draft and preview_draft, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Safe to call repeatedly' and 'creates the finn.no draft if needed' imply when to use it (iterative sync of local edits), but there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to publish_draft/create_draft/update_draft as the alternative for other flows.

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