Publish an approved discussion to a specific forum and audience. Requires course ID, forum ID, subject, message, and confirmation token.
Publica la discusión sin adjuntos aprobada para el foro y audiencia exactos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| forum_id | Yes | ||
| group_id | No | ||
| course_id | Yes | ||
| confirmation_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare write and destructive behavior, so the description must add context beyond that. It fails to mention the required confirmation_token workflow, what 'aprobada' means, or any side effects like irreversibility. The description adds little beyond the annotations, leaving the agent without crucial behavioral details.
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?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the action and key constraints. It wastes no words, but it omits critical information due to its brevity, so it doesn't earn a 5.
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?
For a write operation with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't cover the preview-confirmation flow, the meaning of 'approved', the significance of the destructive hint, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot safely and correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'forum' and 'audiencia' (forum_id and group_id) but says nothing about course_id, subject, message, or especially confirmation_token. The token's purpose is completely unexplained, leaving the agent guessing.
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 clearly states the action ('Publica' - publishes) and resource ('discusión' - discussion) for a specific forum and audience. It distinguishes itself from siblings like preview_create_forum_discussion by focusing on the actual publishing step, and from reply_forum_post by targeting new discussions. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'sin adjuntos' (without attachments) and 'aprobada' (approved) hints at conditions, but the description doesn't tell the agent to use preview_create_forum_discussion first to obtain a confirmation token, nor does it explain when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.