send_draftSends an authorized static folder as a draft while respecting the existing quota, without publishing, replacing, or deleting themes. The user publishes it later from the panel.
Envia a pasta estática autorizada como rascunho, respeitando a cota existente. Não publica, substitui ou exclui temas. A publicação é feita no painel pelo usuário.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds useful beyond-annotation context: it consumes the existing quota and explicitly does not publish, substitute or delete themes. This clarifies the side-effect profile rather than just restating annotations.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then quota/side-effect constraints, then the publishing note. No filler; each sentence carries information the agent needs.
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 zero-param action with no output schema, the description covers what is sent and what it does not do, but says nothing about the result of a successful or failed send (no confirmation, return, or quota-exhaustion behavior). Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about outcomes.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no per-parameter meaning to supplement. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4; nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate arguments.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: it sends the authorized static folder as a draft ('Envia a pasta estática autorizada como rascunho'). The action is clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings inspect_site and connection_info, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives real context: it respects an existing quota and explicitly does not publish, replace or delete themes, with publishing left to the user in the panel. That sets a clear boundary on when this tool applies versus the manual publishing flow, though it does not route to any MCP alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.