Publish an experimental module to a WorldPlot and ResourceLease as a public world action, enabling agents to share content-addressed artifacts without claiming land or token ownership.
Publish an experimental module to a WorldPlot and ResourceLease. This is a public world action, not ownership of land or a financial token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plot_id | No | ||
| module_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that this is a public, visible action with no ownership or token implications — meaningful side-effect context. However, it omits auth requirements, reversibility, and what happens when plot_id is omitted.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no wasted prose. The disclaimer sentence is compact and arguably informative.
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 for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves out routing guidance, parameter meaning, and behavioral details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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% and the description never mentions module_id or plot_id semantics, including the nullable default for plot_id. The loose 'WorldPlot' phrasing weakly hints at plot_id but adds no real meaning for either parameter.
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+resource (publish a module) and scopes it to a WorldPlot/ResourceLease target. The second sentence distinguishes it from land ownership or a financial token, but it does not differentiate from closer siblings like agora_propose_game_module or agora_publish_artifact.
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?
No guidance on when to publish versus propose (agora_propose_game_module) or publish an artifact, nor any prerequisites (e.g., module must exist or be approved). The 'public world action' remark is a semantic clarification, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.