NomaCMS MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Unpublish Entry

unpublish_entry

Unpublishes an entry by clearing its live published pointer, making it invisible in the public API while preserving all historical versions.

Instructions

Clear the live published pointer for an entry. The entry becomes invisible under state=published in the public API, but all historical versions are retained and still accessible via list_entry_versions / get_entry_version.

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": {
      "collection_slug": "<collection_slug>",
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "unpublish_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uuid`	Yes	The entry UUID
`collection_slug`	Yes	The collection slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: the entry becomes invisible under state=published, historical versions are retained. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but sufficiently conveys the core behavior.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the effects. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and its consequences. No missing information.

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 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema-provided 'The entry UUID' and 'The collection slug', so baseline score applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Clear the live published pointer for an entry.' It specifies the effect (invisible under state=published) and differentiates from siblings like publish_entry and list_entry_versions.

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 implies when to use (to unpublish) and notes that historical versions remain accessible via other tools. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear for a simple unpublish action.

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